I agree with you. There's different types of trust. There's the first usual kind: "I trust my friend to give me back the stuff I let him borrow", "I trust my ba

I agree with you. There's different types of trust. There's the first usual kind: "I trust my friend to give me back the stuff I let him borrow", "I trust my bank to make it easy for me to use my money the way I want and keep doing this forever". Then there's a separate kind, "I trust that I understand this open system correctly". Cryptocurrencies focus on removing the need for that first kind of trust. The second kind of trust is a different kind of issue that's much more tractable. It's an issue that we can make progress on, by having more people study it, by creating better learning materials, by making the system more understandable, etc. The article really frustrates me because it doesn't draw this distinction at all. To re-state you a little, I feel like one could make a similar article saying that end-to-end encryption is a worthless improvement over Facebook messages because you still have to "trust" something to keep your messages private, which is a false equivalence.