I think this is a terrible idea given both the current appallingly bad state of unintended vulnerabilities in computer security and the appalling intended security vulnerabilities inherent in centralized architectures like the one they're proposing.
I think this is a terrible idea given both the current appallingly bad state of unintended vulnerabilities in computer security and the appalling intended security vulnerabilities inherent in centralized architectures like the one they're proposing.
However I can see a benefit in electronic money becoming a public utility rather than being controlled by private companies trying to extract rent.
Visa and MasterCard engage in massive rent extraction.
Would have been nicer with some form of robust international system for money transfer and exchange where middle men could not nickel and dime you the whole way.
Well, in fact, the system you are describing has existed for 11 years and inspired the Swedish system being discussed here; presumably the attributes you are wishing for are precisely the ones that they want to eliminate by creating their own private system instead of just using Bitcoin.
So maybe proof of work can be replaced, but without some consensus protocol it's not a blockchain in any meaningful sense.
I pretty much agree that "some consensus protocol" is probably the right place to draw the line. I'd add "decentralized", in the sense that no single entity can control the "consensus", which I think may be what you mean: "some decentralized consensus protocol".