3 ms·

Trust isn't really a feature of blockchains, nor is it a byproduct (or "software primitive") of blockchains. Bitcoin was designed to avoid a need for trust, so

Trust isn't really a feature of blockchains, nor is it a byproduct (or "software primitive") of blockchains. Bitcoin was designed to avoid a need for trust, so it really just steps around the issue of trust in a distributed ledger. This is a critical misunderstanding that a lot of people are still preaching and perpetuating. You can't really build systems that rely on trust on top of a blockchain, and those who have tried are mostly just moving (human/corruptible) authorities of trust to more obscure places. You can, however, build systems that do not require trust on top of a blockchain, though there are some very serious limitations that confine those systems/applications to digital-only transactions. In other words, I can be reasonably assured that the Bitcoin you sent me is spendable by me (that it hasn't been double-spent) and that a government can't just issue 21 million more Bitcoin tomorrow, but that tells me absolutely nothing about whether or not I can (currently or in the future) "trust" your address on the blockchain, nor can it be tied to any kind of meaningful identity without reintroducing a real-world authority that requires my trust. Bitcoin has proven itself to be useful on the payment side of transactions, but I'm unconvinced that blockchain tech will ever be able to facilitate the delivery side of transactions (unless it's a digital asset being delivered) without compromising the fundamental aims of Bitcoin.

Felz 8y ago
Trust is inescapable. You've simply shifted yours from reputational trust to trust in the decentralization of the computing frontier of a specific hashing problem. But while reputational trust is cheap and a well-solved problem, the trust you're using _requires_ large amounts of computing value to be burned continuously, in the hopes that electricity and computation are decentralized enough in the real world that multiple non-collaborating actors will be burning it.
- dperfect 8y ago
  I agree mostly with the point you're making, but there's an important distinction between "reputational trust" and an assumption that game theory and market forces will continue to provide the necessary levels of decentralization for Bitcoin to operate as intended. I'm not sure it's fair to put those two ideas on equal ground as if all forms of trust should be embraced because it's "inescapable". Reputational trust (as you call it) often isn't even based on reputation so much as military force (sovereign governments). A lot of people - myself included - would much rather have their finances in the hands of algorithms and theoretically-sound incentives (even without a 100% guarantee of decentralization) than in the hands of central banks controlled by the whims of politicians.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Felz 8y ago
    In other words, you think that the blockchain setup is more trust _worthy_ than political accountability. That's fine (if not my cup of tea). My point was that you're still extending the same amount of trust; i.e. you have to accept things without direct proof in an environment that may attempt to manipulate you for its own benefit. It's worth considering what these things are. What you essentially want is: - There should be a limited total amount of money - Iff people want to give money to somebody else in exchange for something, they should be able to do so in a timely fashion - People should only be able to give away their money - There should be no possibility of double-spending. - People should generally be willing to accept money for things you want at a stable rate. Given that you cannot personally examine every transaction ever made and ask people if they _really_ wanted to do that at the time, and that you also cannot control what people want, where does the abstraction you use start leaking?
mgummelt 8y ago
> Trust isn't really a feature of blockchains, nor is it a byproduct (or "software primitive") of blockchains. Bitcoin was designed to avoid a need for trust, so it really just steps around the issue of trust in a distributed ledger. I'm not sure what you're saying here. BTC wasn't designed to avoid the need for trust. It was designed to incentivize the network to act in a way such that you can trust it. That's how it provides trust.
- dperfect 8y ago
  Bitcoin was indeed designed to avoid the need for trust: "What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party." [1] To your point, in a broad sense the Bitcoin network relies on an inherent kind of "trust" that a certain set of economic assumptions and cryptographic algorithms will continue to function as designed. If you want to equate that with the trust given to financial institutions and governments that handle most of the world's money, I'm not going to stop you; I just happen to think those are very different things. If someone (or a group of people) is able to pull off a 51% attack on Bitcoin (or if a serious flaw in the cryptographic algorithm gets discovered), there's a very high likelihood that everyone will know about it, and it will be fixed quickly. On the other hand, when the federal reserve decides to print another pile of cash, very few people know about it until they start noticing their grocery bill increasing. And even when you know there's a problem with the way our money is being manipulated, there's really not a lot you or anyone can do about it. [1] https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
  - mgummelt 8y ago
    I'm not equating government trust and blockchain trust in the strict sense. I'm saying they're both forms of trust. You're saying trust isn't a feature of the blockchain, seemingly based on the fact that users no longer have to trust central authorities. But the only reason this is possible is because users can trust the blockchain instead. So how is trust not a feature?

Felz 8y ago

Trust is inescapable. You've simply shifted yours from reputational trust to trust in the decentralization of the computing frontier of a specific hashing problem. But while reputational trust is cheap and a well-solved problem, the trust you're using _requires_ large amounts of computing value to be burned continuously, in the hopes that electricity and computation are decentralized enough in the real world that multiple non-collaborating actors will be burning it.

dperfect 8y ago
I agree mostly with the point you're making, but there's an important distinction between "reputational trust" and an assumption that game theory and market forces will continue to provide the necessary levels of decentralization for Bitcoin to operate as intended. I'm not sure it's fair to put those two ideas on equal ground as if all forms of trust should be embraced because it's "inescapable". Reputational trust (as you call it) often isn't even based on reputation so much as military force (sovereign governments). A lot of people - myself included - would much rather have their finances in the hands of algorithms and theoretically-sound incentives (even without a 100% guarantee of decentralization) than in the hands of central banks controlled by the whims of politicians.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Felz 8y ago
  In other words, you think that the blockchain setup is more trust _worthy_ than political accountability. That's fine (if not my cup of tea). My point was that you're still extending the same amount of trust; i.e. you have to accept things without direct proof in an environment that may attempt to manipulate you for its own benefit. It's worth considering what these things are. What you essentially want is: - There should be a limited total amount of money - Iff people want to give money to somebody else in exchange for something, they should be able to do so in a timely fashion - People should only be able to give away their money - There should be no possibility of double-spending. - People should generally be willing to accept money for things you want at a stable rate. Given that you cannot personally examine every transaction ever made and ask people if they _really_ wanted to do that at the time, and that you also cannot control what people want, where does the abstraction you use start leaking?

mgummelt 8y ago

> Trust isn't really a feature of blockchains, nor is it a byproduct (or "software primitive") of blockchains. Bitcoin was designed to avoid a need for trust, so it really just steps around the issue of trust in a distributed ledger. I'm not sure what you're saying here. BTC wasn't designed to avoid the need for trust. It was designed to incentivize the network to act in a way such that you can trust it. That's how it provides trust.

dperfect 8y ago
Bitcoin was indeed designed to avoid the need for trust: "What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party." [1] To your point, in a broad sense the Bitcoin network relies on an inherent kind of "trust" that a certain set of economic assumptions and cryptographic algorithms will continue to function as designed. If you want to equate that with the trust given to financial institutions and governments that handle most of the world's money, I'm not going to stop you; I just happen to think those are very different things. If someone (or a group of people) is able to pull off a 51% attack on Bitcoin (or if a serious flaw in the cryptographic algorithm gets discovered), there's a very high likelihood that everyone will know about it, and it will be fixed quickly. On the other hand, when the federal reserve decides to print another pile of cash, very few people know about it until they start noticing their grocery bill increasing. And even when you know there's a problem with the way our money is being manipulated, there's really not a lot you or anyone can do about it. [1] https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
- mgummelt 8y ago
  I'm not equating government trust and blockchain trust in the strict sense. I'm saying they're both forms of trust. You're saying trust isn't a feature of the blockchain, seemingly based on the fact that users no longer have to trust central authorities. But the only reason this is possible is because users can trust the blockchain instead. So how is trust not a feature?