Good morning yanmaani,
> > 3.More people from different countries getting involved in important > > roles. > > Isn't Bitcoin already plenty distributed? Funding people in > under-represented countries seems to me like a textbook exercise in > 'box-ticking, but moreover, I'd frankly rather have reasonably well-off > guys from Western Europe/America who have the financial backbone to not > worry that much about attacks to their funding, than mercenaries who > have to follow orders or get fired. Even if they're from West > Uzbekistan. > > (Maybe they need a union?) > > > 4.Few anons. > > Gonna guess you mean "a few anons," not fewer anons. > > Again, problem is money. These days, nobody threatens anyone with > anything substantive, like murder - the threats all involve cutting off > some funding. So having anonymous people being funded by non-robust > sources doesn't really buy you that much, because the weakest link will > pretty much never be the de-jure, legal freedom of an individual. > > Having a system that allows people to fund anonymous people better would > be interesting, but it has some challenges with trust and so on. <ZmnSCPxj coughs quietly in GMT+8 timezone> On the other hand, one can argue that "ZmnSCPxj" at this point is a bonafide name (that happens to once have been simply a random sequence of letters) rather than an anonymous cover. As to box-ticking: the simple fact of the matter is that smart humans will arise everywhere. It is to the interest of Bitcoin users that more of thhem contribute to the success of Bitcoin. The alternative by default is that smart people who became smart because they happened to start out with the disadvantage of having to fight tooth and claw in a bad environment will be quite willing to do anything, including attack Bitcoin, just to get out of such a situation. Regards, ZmnSCPxj _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
