3 ms·
> Outsourcing the task to a centralized service also sounds bad. At that point you have to trust that service. You don't have to trust that service. He can't s
by nadaviv 10y ago
> Outsourcing the task to a centralized service also sounds bad. At that point you have to trust that service.
You don't have to trust that service. He can't steal your money, you don't lose any privacy if the other party doesn't cheat, you don't pay anything to the service if there's no cheating attempt, and the 3rd-party service is financially incentivized to help you prevent cheating.
So, no, you don't "trust" anyone in any more meaningful sense than saying that you're "trusting" the miners.
- pmorici 10y agoYes, you absolutely have to trust the service. If I have a channel open with Alice and she wants to cheat me but I've out sourced my monitoring to Bob Alice only needs to pay off Bob to go along with her cheating me. I have to trust Bob not to collude with Alice. In Bitcoin I don't have to trust anyone. Surely you can see that there is a difference in the two models.
- nadaviv 10y agoYou can have as many Bobs as you want, which can all function at a very low cost and compete for users with low fees and high service quality. I can easily imagine registering your transactions to tens of different service providers, making it quite impossible for Alice to pay them all of (or even know who they are).
- pmorici 10y agoHow do you know bob didn't setup many nodes to perform a sybil attack on you? You don't.