Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Slight grammar edit in readme.md #1099

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Slight grammar edit in readme.md #1099

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -97,5 +97,5 @@ Bitcoin is and always should be focused on its goals of being a better form of m

In the new global economy, borders and jurisdictions will be less relevant as more assets are tradable and trade across borders is increasingly frictionless. In an age where people can move significant amounts of wealth instantly using Bitcoin, global consumers will likely demand the same efficiency for their securities and similar asset holdings.

For such a global system to work it will need to be independent of regulatory jurisdictions. This is not due to ideological belief but practicality: if the rails for blockchain asset transfer are not censorship resistance and jurisdiction agnostic, any given jurisdiction may be in conflict with another. In legacy systems, wealth was generally confined in the jurisdiction of the holder and therefore easy to control based on the policies of that jurisdiction. Because of the global nature of blockchain technology any protocol level ability to control wealth would potentially place jurisdictions in conflict and will not be able to operate fairly.
For such a global system to work it will need to be independent of regulatory jurisdictions. This is not due to ideological belief but practicality: if the rails for blockchain asset transfer are not censorship resistant and jurisdiction agnostic, any given jurisdiction may be in conflict with another. In legacy systems, wealth was generally confined in the jurisdiction of the holder and therefore easy to control based on the policies of that jurisdiction. Because of the global nature of blockchain technology any protocol level ability to control wealth would potentially place jurisdictions in conflict and will not be able to operate fairly.