According to Snowden, a cryptocurrency project that centralizes decision-making is not a reliable project. According to Wood, the problem is not about centralization; but the tools that condition it.
Renowned cybersecurity expert Edward Snowden talked with Gavin Wood about decentralization on cryptocurrency networks. Snowden was adamant against centralization, while Wood chose other paths to talk about it.
On Friday, an online conference cycle known as DeData took place. The event got organized by BlockDown and was a stage for Snowden and Wood to have the chance to share their thoughts regarding different technological advances related to cryptocurrencies, blockchain, and web3.
Snowden insisted on the importance of privacy and the decentralization of power in different aspects of today’s life, such as communication, the management of personal and public data, finances, among other factors. Snowden got pursued by American justice because he remained true to his principles.
On the other hand, Wood is not as radical as Snowden when it comes to decentralization. According to Wood, the existence of a supreme authority in which a community must trust and that ensures compliance with the established policies is usually necessary.
Decentralization for Edward Snowden and Ethereum’s Co-founder
According to Wood, the decentralization and allegiances of Bitcoin are the properties that have made it an unstoppable force. Regarding the alliances of this cryptocurrency, Wood explained that he used that term since Bitcoin arose without having a legal framework that delimited it. No regulation proclaimed its use was legal, but any other procedure claimed otherwise.
Snowden fully agrees with Wood on these words. However, disagreements between the two would come later, when the former US government employee spoke about his lack of confidence in various projects that are issuing stablecoins.
According to Snowden, a project based on Bitcoin technology issuing some stablecoin or “stable cryptocurrency” enables the possibility of creating black lists of users. Users do not deserve to get recognized as the issuers of a stablecoin so, that plenipotentiary and censorship aspect makes it unstable, both to the project and to its product.
After highlighting his point, Snowden ended his participation by asking who else should have the right to spend their own money but themselves. This question referred to the fact that if there is someone with enough power in a network to take away the freedom to spend or keep a cryptocurrency from its owner, it is not a reliable project.
Wood went against Snowden’s words, saying that, there is nothing wrong with regulations and censorship in a network of this type. A set of regulative tools must enter the scenario to channel the power of those who are leading these positions.
The arguments that both participants highlighted in favor of decentralization and centralization are valid points. No winner arrived from this debate, but it was a clash of ideas with a logical background, which is worth keeping in mind when undertaking a cryptocurrency project.
By: Jenson Nuñez
