j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckMú<div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=202.msg1759#msg1759">Quote from: amall on June 25, 2010, 12:56:40 AM</a></div><div class="quote">Max,<br/><br/>Your comments make total sense, as long as there is time to switch over to the new currency when a threat looms. This is pretty reasonable. For example, people might start to find some small flaws with SHA-256, and so people would have time to buy into the new currency before the whole system unravels.<br/><br/>However, supposing somebody found a major flaw while BC was in widespread usage, that person could commit a lot of fraud without people even realizing immediately. In this case, it might be valuable to have some kind of registry, because people might want to buy into a new currency that does include some distribution in proportion to formerly registered wealth (game theoretically, only the wealthier registered 50% would prefer this currency, but that's the topic of another discussion).<br/><br/>Now, it seems like a pretty good solution would be for everyone to hold a diversity of digital currencies, which are backed by a diversity of cryptographic methods. However, this solution has many costs of its own, since the marketplace would need to support many currencies. Among other things, it would be absolutely necessary to have many competing, cheap exchanges.<br/><br/><br/></div><br/>Any monetary system with a central registering authority is headed for failure imo.</div> text/html
https://whatsonchain.com/tx/3b71d2fa7de5c7e040f20e1c8a9f0888b0aed4f59dff93e9f109d7611428fdee