Sure, you can create a currency which can have bail outs by having a magic private key for yourself, just like how central banks work right now.
Good luck getting other people to use that currency though :)
Good luck getting other people to use that currency though :)
The core developer team effectively wields this power, but people still seem to be using their currency.
I'm in the Bitcoin camp, and I think that the Ethereum developers are not careful enough with the changes they make to a multibillion dollar system, but you are right, many people like to use it.
Etherum doesn't have much of a philosophy. They have recently been pivoting away from a "universal computer" rhetoric to one focused on "decentralized finance."
But this is merely a red herring: Ethereum was centralized from day 1 due to their distribution method, and the DAO is just a natural consequence of centralization.
Naturally, you still have to be mindful about whether or not you want to upgrade to software you do not wish to use. Upgrading to the new version and continuing to use it was a conscious decision to continue using that branch of the chain, made by the majority.
The reason the one has value and the other doesn't is pretty much down to brand recognition/network effect.
Though as I also said - in a central bank situation where a single chain is mandated, that's less of a concern.
Infinite blockchains argument is not valid. Blockchains need to be secure and you can't get billions worth of mining power or POS investments from thin air. Certain blockchains have value because of this security and also from network effects. Both of these effects favor existing blockchains, not new ones. Strongest get stronger.
Which is purely down to branding.
>Infinite blockchains argument is not valid.
Because you say so?
> Blockchains need to be secure and you can't get billions worth of mining power or POS investments from thin air.
These follow value, they don't create it.