2 ms·

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

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?
- dperfect 8y ago
  Trust isn't a feature in the way a16z describes: "Blockchain computers are new types of computers where the unique capability is trust between users, developers, and the platform itself." So yes, maybe blockchains require a certain level of trust in the technology (and decentralization) to be useful, but they certainly don't give rise to trust between users or developers. I know that's not what you were claiming - I'm just pointing out that blockchain tech doesn't magically create trust between strangers (nor is that its intention). Still, it does allow transactions to happen between untrusted parties as long as both of those parties have a basic level of confidence - or trust as you say - in the assumptions built into the blockchain.

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?

dperfect 8y ago
Trust isn't a feature in the way a16z describes: "Blockchain computers are new types of computers where the unique capability is trust between users, developers, and the platform itself." So yes, maybe blockchains require a certain level of trust in the technology (and decentralization) to be useful, but they certainly don't give rise to trust between users or developers. I know that's not what you were claiming - I'm just pointing out that blockchain tech doesn't magically create trust between strangers (nor is that its intention). Still, it does allow transactions to happen between untrusted parties as long as both of those parties have a basic level of confidence - or trust as you say - in the assumptions built into the blockchain.