Quote from: buwaytress on July 13, 2021, 02:48:37 PM

Reminds me when a few years ago some economists were claiming Bitcoin's actually the birth of a new form of accounting. Some like here just called it triple-entry accounting, but many came forth to say it wasn't actually so, still double-entry but with the addition of a consensus network. I don't hear the term bandied around anymore.

I guess you're with the latter?

Disclaimer: not an accountant so don't know how to go for or against, just sharing.

thank you for your sharing. In fact, many times we don't need to have too much professional knowledge. The key is that we know its basic logic. I am writing this article now, mainly to show that the invention of Bitcoin has greatly changed economics and accounting. However, what has changed and how has changed will require more professional scholars to study.

Quote from: Ucy on July 13, 2021, 03:59:25 PM

Quote

This is my opinion, what about you ?

Interesting.
But number two not really necessary as long as all/most participants run full nodes and take part in full network consensus.
In a fair model that easily scale, certain participants can choose to control multiple full nodes of different sizes to guarantee continuous data availability and to enable any kind of participants (most/all participants) run customizable full nodes that will hardly get too large or difficult to download/run. With this, anyone can still equally participate in full network consensus, whether you control multiple full nodes or just on mini full node. and Bitcoin ideals/principles are still preserved

Yes, this is where the idea of Bitcoin is clever. It can achieve balance among participants in the continuous game of multiple parties.