5 ms·
If you’re an insider, there’s a somewhat big technical mistake in there that kind of undermines their credibility. > Blockchain computers are new types of comp
by pdpi 8y ago
If you’re an insider, there’s a somewhat big technical mistake in there that kind of undermines their credibility.
> Blockchain computers are new types of computers where the unique capability is trust between users, developers, and the platform itself.
Trusting somebody implies they’re in a position to hurt you, which makes it undesirable in a secure system. Unfortunately, trustless systems tend to be cumbersome and impractical. What makes Bitcoin interesting is precisely that it’s a remarkably practical system built on a trustless base.
- pedro_hab 8y agoI think they meant you trust that the network will compute the transactions properly. You need to trust that Bitcoin network is strong enough not to be hijacked, as Bitcoin Gold was with the 51% attack earlier this year.
- mgummelt 8y agoWhat are you saying the mistake is?
- pdpi 8y agoThe “unique capability” of nakamoto consensus is the exact opposite of trust between parties — it’s that it operates without trust.
- mgummelt 8y agoIt doesn't operate without trust. It just makes it so you no longer have to trust banks. But you still have to trust the network.
- pdpi 8y agoSort of — the trust in the network is reduced to: 1. I trust nobody has >50% of the hashing power. 2. I trust network participants to be economically rational actors This is both a much smaller, and much more explicit, set of things you need to trust than regular banking. At any rate, the bigger point is that the a16z post describes trust as a positive, whereas the correct attitude is to treat trust as a negative quality of a system. Cryptocurrencies are not designed to engender trust, they're designed to avoid it wherever possible.