The US Dollar Is Like a Collapsing Building; Bitcoin Allows El Salvador to Step Away (2-minute audio clip from Max Keiser & Stacy Herbert)
https://ift.tt/3sx3Qpr
They raise the interesting issue of the effect of having **legacy systems**? Is it an advantage or a disadvantage?
Everything is a legacy system right after it is built or after it emerges.
For example, the English language is a legacy system. According to evolution theory, even humanity itself would be a legacy system.
Is it a problem to be required to stay compatible with all the miracles and all the horrors of the past?
*My own opinion:*
– **No**, if it is allowed to evolve.
– **Yes**, if it is not allowed to rise to new challenges.
So, while it is indeed a massive problem for the fiat banking system that it is a legacy system, it is in general not a problem. On the contrary, the existence of a legacy system tends to be an important advantage.
Joel Spolsky wrote a famous article, titled, [Things You Should Never Do, Part I](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i):
>*They did it by making the single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make: They decided to rewrite the code from scratch.*
>*There’s a subtle reason that programmers always want to throw away the code and start over. The reason is that they think the old code is a mess. And here is the interesting observation: they are probably wrong. The reason that they think the old code is a mess is because of a cardinal, fundamental law of programming: It’s harder to read code than to write it.*
>*The idea that new code is better than old is patently absurd. Old code has been used. It has been tested. Lots of bugs have been found, and they’ve been fixed.*
The reason why Bitcoin did not emerge from within the banking system, is because it was simply not allowed to. That is the real reason why it is such a threat to the legacy banking system.
Cryptocurrency
