Bitcoin is not more decentralized than Libra today[1]. Libra has 28 members, going to 100. The top 11 bitcoin mining pools control 99% of the hashrate.

[1] https://www.blockchain.com/pools

Pools are groups of miners. If the pool operator starts behaving badly, the constituent miners will point their hashpower elsewhere.

You forgot a “might” in there.

Bitcoin is more decentralized than Facebook's coin no matter what because mining is controlled by an algorithm, rather than being an invite-only club.

In theory, sure. In practice, the miner implementations are the ones controlling the chain. The only difference is, I can name the CEOs and leaders of many of the Libra companies, I don't know who the leaders of the mining pools are.

Miners don't really have much control in the bitcoin ecosystem.

Also, the composition of large miners changes over time and can adjust organically, unlike membership in the Facebook coin cabal.

If 100 miners meet at the same country club and follow the same government's laws/nudges that's as decentralized as one.

Could you explain why you think democracy is important and has much to do with how U.S. currency is managed? It seems to me that voters have very little influence on decisions made by the Federal Reserve, and that's intentional. We wouldn't want a central bank to be much influenced by the latest election.

The Federal Reserve is a consortium of banks and tends to make decisions that are good for banks, so if you're worried about corporatism, it's already here.

The chair and board of the federal reserve are appointed by the president.

This is true, but being appointed is important. Much like the Supreme Court, they are expected to be independent, not "accountable".

Also it has a government enforced monopoly.

That’s a ridiculous statement if you consider the fed a part of the government. I.e. the fire department and police both have “government enforced monopolies”. The government itself is a “government enforced monopoly”

“The alternative would be a repeal of laws establishing police, allowing consumers & businesses to choose between law enforcement providers.”

Look I’m not saying you can’t criticize the existence of the fed, but calling them a “government enforced monopoly” is inane. They are a _part_ of the government.

If using a given telephone company were mandated by the government, it would be by definition a government enforced monopoly. Similarly, legal tender laws force businesses to accept USD to settle all debts. From this point, Gresham's law also plays a role.

There is a long history of private policing in the United States.

The Federal Reserve Bank is not owned by the government. It is considered a public private partnership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_police_in_the_United_S... https://mises.org/wire/private-policing-isnt-fantasy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law

What does Libra do to people who don't opt to use it?

Assuming adoption - It exists in the world and has all the influence an adopted currency has. Influence controlled by Facebook.

This seems like nothing but fearmongering. We don't any reason to expect that libra is going to displace "real" currencies.

Why the hell would the governments of the world give up their power over currency? It is a huge power they hold that they do not want to lose.

Have you ever heard the term "legal tender"? You are legally required to accept USD as payment in America, and every country has a similar law. The government can literally force you (with guns if need be!!) to use their currency. Is that better than what FB is doing?

Sometimes I think people get so wrapped up in dystopian fear mongering they don't analyze the current situation.

> You are legally required to accept USD as payment in America

Accepting a currency doesn't force a customer to use it.

> Accepting a currency doesn't force a customer to use it.

Only accepting a certain currency does force a customer to use it, which is the case 99.99% of the time.

As someone who exists in the world - existing in the world is not a crime!

From my reading corporatism is defined as the government dictating economic policy via various syndicates. I.e. the business owner retains nominal control over the means of production, but the actual production decisions are made by an industry-wide government bureau.

If what you say is true, why not support the project and buy shares in the 28 controlling entities?

As another non-US national, I still have far, far more faith in US democracy than FB corporatism.

In any case, the US isn't the only country in the world with a monetary policy that could get trampled over.

Or choose Bitcoin and have neither :)

You think the LN doesn't exist? What? There are dozens of LN visual explores out there. Who told you this lie?

The whole point of using LN is to use Bitcoin as a settlement layer. You make one initial transaction to open a channel and that's it. In the future users will onboard directly into LN channels anyway. On chain scaling is still important. Ethereum 2.0 will likely do over 10,000 tx/sec. Don't know about Bitcoin.

I use lightning every day. I use bitrefill to buy pretty much anything I want. Recently bought a game on steam and some late night uber eats.

Also loads of websites where you can use it.

Choose a third position? Go ahead, throw your vote away!

"Don't blame me — I voted for Kodos."

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how currencies work. They are managed by central banks which are designed to be independent of the government of the day.

And corporates basically own and run the internet and it seems to be doing pretty well.

> They are managed by central banks which are designed to be independent of the government of the day.

Heh, I think you fundamentally misunderstand how central banks work.

1. The US Mint creates the supply of currency in the US, which is literally governed by the government.[0]

2. It's literally governed by presidentially appointed officials.

3. The Fed manages the banking system, which is a trusted system that utilizes fiat currency as a medium of exchange. Their focus is much more aligned to economic prosperity and policy formulation then it is about how the "currency is managed" (the two are obviously interrelated).

> And corporates basically own and run the internet and it seems to be doing pretty well.

There's a big difference between "it basically does" and "it is".

EDIT: [0] - My bad, the BEP creates currency which is overseen by the Treasury, which is in fact a government entity.

> 1. The US Mint creates the supply of currency in the US, which is literally governed by the government.

This is wrong in a couple of ways. The mint creates coins, not dollar bills. Those are federal reserve notes. But who literally mints the money doesn't matter - the Fed has always had control over the money supply. That's the power that matters.

> 2. It's literally governed by presidentially appointed officials.

This is also true of the supreme Court. This doesn't change the fact that the Fed can operate independently of the government. As an analog, how often do you worry about what your hiring manager things of you? Once you have the job, they don't have any power over you.

US Supreme Court is appointed by Congress/President.

You wouldn't say that is it "literally governed". Just like the Supreme Court the Federal Reserve has appointed positions but has in the modern era been independent. It isn't like it is a department such as Homeland Security.

And the central bank model applies in most countries not just the US.

AIUI, all it would take is an act of Congress to effect change on how the Federal Reserve does business — whereas changing the function of the Supreme Court is somewhat more constrained by the constitution. I believe "governed" is still appropriate, even though the Federal Reserve can act independently, it is only able to do so because Congress permits it.

> US Supreme Court is appointed by Congress/President.

And have life-long appointments.

> You wouldn't say that is it "literally governed".

Your conflating two ideas. I would actually say that the Supreme Court is a government entity. You said:

> independent of the government

It literally depends on the US government in order to function. Calling it independent by any stretch of the definition is disingenuous.

> And the central bank model applies in most countries not just the US.

You missed the point. Libra is offering a coin on a global scale. To compare this to one central bank is like comparing apples to oranges.

Honestly, I really don't understand your overall point. You genuinely think the Fed just sits on some island while it regulates US economic policy without any influence or dependence on anything but itself? Think about that for a second.

> 1. The US Mint creates the supply of currency in the US, which is literally governed by the government.

Congress long-since assigned that responsibility--with the exception of coinage--to the Federal Reserve. Note that our currency no longer says "United States Dollar" on it, only "Federal Reserve Note."