Quote from: neurorit on July 15, 2014, 04:02:55 AM

You're not supposed to have to trust the devs. Open source means you don't have to trust them. It's not a rule. There are no rules. But when you have a coin that A) has a network that is dangerously centralized. PoS coin having that large of a percentage of its coins supply on an exchange wallet is messed up. It's so much worse than Ghash.Io and such. Then B) you have coins that are secure and are open source which don't require trusting the devs that offer the same functionality except maybe a couple gimmicky centralized features ... it reeks. Sorry it does. If you're a holder learn from it.

I would say the aim is to have better functionality. I see no reason why people if given a choice might not opt for some level of centralization, nor is there any law of nature that this would lead to less utility or danger to the end user or economy using it. Both systems seem so far to have major weaknesses. The reason for decentralization, for most users, is to provide this functionality by getting around currency laws. I think it is likely that the creators of bitcoin had experience and were involved in previous more centralized currency projects that ran into trouble with those laws. In short, if you're decentralized, who gets sued? who goes to jail? it confuses legal systems. It could be that the most effective coins are the ones that can maintain the maximum level of centralization without creating an indefensible legal situation. Or perhaps the ones that maintain the most centralization in their infancy, before being launched as open source, at some critical stage. Nobody knows.

In a darwinian sense I would expect those coins with devs willing to do things like roll back in extreme situations might propagate faster because they don't commit suicide. Unless of course this mass ideaological backlash some are predicting against vrc occurs. Anyway, it's all an experiment and a scam, time will tell who profits.