4 ms·

That's kind of the whole point of it - is that you don't need to trust it.

amelius 8y ago
Correction: you need to trust the technology, just not the actors.
close04 8y ago
No reason to trust blockchain technology. Just like anything else in life, you have to trust the foundation and the construction material to have a good product.
ohiovr 8y ago
Trust or not, you have to be insanely vigilant not to lose it to bad exchanges, extortionists, theft, automatic software like malware, losing a password, or media that destroys itself. Those are widespread problems I even had bitcoin destroyed on a failed thumb drive. Decentralization is a solution without a legally acceptable problem.
- Stubb 8y ago
  > Decentralization is a solution without a legally acceptable problem. Therein lies the problem—asset forfeiture, genocide, and numerous other horrors have all been legal.
verdverm 8y ago
The point the author is making is that the "you don't need to trust it" is fundamentally misplaced. You do need to trust the institutions, and builders of, much in the same way you need to trust any business you choose to interact with them. The issue of public blockchain is that I now need to trust code and technology in a system where the events are no longer reversible. We know that code and technology is not perfect. This shifting where the trust is placed, without the recourse of law by peers, is why public blockchain may not make it beyond the great experiment. Now add the incentives and protections for malice... what's a reasonable person to trust in public blockchain
- EthanHeilman 8y ago
  Lots of technological systems have non-reversible consequences. For instance hard drives and airplanes for example. Schneier is essentially identifying an inherent trade-off between trusting the correctness of a technological device vs trusting in an institution. This is a trade-off happens all over the place: 1. Many people don't encrypt their email (trust technology) and instead trust gmail and associated intelligence agencies to act in their best interest. 2. Many people encrypt their HTTP connections rather than trusting ISPs and internet providers. An important difference between encrypting HTTP connections and encrypting email is that one is far more convenient than the other. However encrypting your email does make sense in certain situations and so does Bitcoin.
  - verdverm 8y ago
    Why public Bitcoin over a bank's own blockchain solution?
    - EthanHeilman 8y ago
      Does a bank's own blockchain require trusting that bank? If so then you probably don't need a blockchain since you already have assumed a trusted third party. If you are aiming to reduce your institutional trust assumptions to me the question is why not use Bitcoin?
      - verdverm 8y ago
        That's sort of my point. I actually don't care about the technology underneath. I care about the monetary system and its adherence (and recourse) to the rules of law that humans have generally agreed upon. Like, if you steal, the societal system will correct the wrong as much as they can. It's an open question as to whether public blockchains can provide for this trust and requirement.
        dkonofalski 8y ago
        I think that blockchains can provide more trust than the current system because the ledger is publicly visible. The societal system still kicks in to remediate the effects of a mistake but the blockchain is an additional tool used to provide the evidence and support for such a reversal. For me, personally, I think the best solution is a form of blockchain run by a state/federal agency. You're putting trust in an institution, yes, but the underlying technology helps support that trust.

Correction: you need to trust the technology, just not the actors.

No reason to trust blockchain technology. Just like anything else in life, you have to trust the foundation and the construction material to have a good product.

ohiovr 8y ago

Trust or not, you have to be insanely vigilant not to lose it to bad exchanges, extortionists, theft, automatic software like malware, losing a password, or media that destroys itself. Those are widespread problems I even had bitcoin destroyed on a failed thumb drive. Decentralization is a solution without a legally acceptable problem.

Stubb 8y ago
> Decentralization is a solution without a legally acceptable problem. Therein lies the problem—asset forfeiture, genocide, and numerous other horrors have all been legal.

verdverm 8y ago

The point the author is making is that the "you don't need to trust it" is fundamentally misplaced. You do need to trust the institutions, and builders of, much in the same way you need to trust any business you choose to interact with them. The issue of public blockchain is that I now need to trust code and technology in a system where the events are no longer reversible. We know that code and technology is not perfect. This shifting where the trust is placed, without the recourse of law by peers, is why public blockchain may not make it beyond the great experiment. Now add the incentives and protections for malice... what's a reasonable person to trust in public blockchain

EthanHeilman 8y ago
Lots of technological systems have non-reversible consequences. For instance hard drives and airplanes for example. Schneier is essentially identifying an inherent trade-off between trusting the correctness of a technological device vs trusting in an institution. This is a trade-off happens all over the place: 1. Many people don't encrypt their email (trust technology) and instead trust gmail and associated intelligence agencies to act in their best interest. 2. Many people encrypt their HTTP connections rather than trusting ISPs and internet providers. An important difference between encrypting HTTP connections and encrypting email is that one is far more convenient than the other. However encrypting your email does make sense in certain situations and so does Bitcoin.
- verdverm 8y ago
  Why public Bitcoin over a bank's own blockchain solution?
  - EthanHeilman 8y ago
    Does a bank's own blockchain require trusting that bank? If so then you probably don't need a blockchain since you already have assumed a trusted third party. If you are aiming to reduce your institutional trust assumptions to me the question is why not use Bitcoin?
    - verdverm 8y ago
      That's sort of my point. I actually don't care about the technology underneath. I care about the monetary system and its adherence (and recourse) to the rules of law that humans have generally agreed upon. Like, if you steal, the societal system will correct the wrong as much as they can. It's an open question as to whether public blockchains can provide for this trust and requirement.
      - dkonofalski 8y ago
        I think that blockchains can provide more trust than the current system because the ledger is publicly visible. The societal system still kicks in to remediate the effects of a mistake but the blockchain is an additional tool used to provide the evidence and support for such a reversal. For me, personally, I think the best solution is a form of blockchain run by a state/federal agency. You're putting trust in an institution, yes, but the underlying technology helps support that trust.