[Cryptography] Our leader opines on cryptocurrencies

[james hughes]

> On Jul 23, 2019, at 7:54 AM, jamesd at echeque.com wrote:
> 
>>> Assume the processing is shardable with mutually trusting shards that do not suffer byzantine failure.
> 
>> If there is mutual trust
> 
> No mutual trust between peers.  The shards that trust each other live within a single rack owned by a single peer.  Trust does not extend outside that rack.
> 
> The sharding is to enable peers to be big enough.

OK, so there is no mutual trust between the [big enough] peers, but will the number of peer be enough to prevent collusion among the peers? 

Imagine, Visa and MasterCard. They each process [insert large number] of transactions. Maybe they decide to look for mistakes each other makes. Who checks the checkers? How will they get access to the [insert large number] of transactions? Where is their payoff for doing that work? One of the best features of Bitcoin is the immunity of collusion that does not include 1/2 the miners. 

If the governments gets involved in checking the peers (make no mistake, they will), we are back to regulated banking?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20190725/8fd7dd5e/attachment.htm>