5 ms·

A lot of the comments here are about trust. About how there is a technical solution to mistrust. I am a bit confused: Trust really matters. It is one of the

by worik 6y ago

A lot of the comments here are about trust. About how there is a technical solution to mistrust. I am a bit confused: Trust really matters. It is one of the most important distinguishing features between societies. Societies with higher levels of trust tend to do better than others. SO they taught me when I studied development economics. Trust is between people, it is a complex fabric. How can some technological solution replace that? Put on your black hat (temporarily) and analyse every use case of technology to replace trust and think How could I subvert this? Will not take you long. We all need to be kind to one another, be trustworthy ourselves, and verify where possible, and be confident in each other. There is no technological replacement for that

baby 6y ago
The answer is transparency: in a cryptographic decentralized system you still have human interactions, but they are in the open (in most systems) and can be verified. This is better than relying on gossiping alone.
- Jasper_ 6y ago
  No, they're not? You can still have backroom deals with a blockchain, you just don't put the backroom deals on the blockchain.
  - baby 6y ago
    It depends what you're doing, and what you're allowing in your system. You're talking about an omnibus account[1] or a trade that hasn't been settled (but will be settled at some point). Depending on your system, there are ways to be less transparent. You also lose the transparency that you could benefit from the system yourself, and there's some limitation to it (the amount of the omnibus account is still visible, and money still moves between omnibus accounts). On the other hand, wherever you are on the spectrum, it is still a more transparent system compared to a blackbox centralized system, or a multitude of blackbox systems trying to settle between one another all the time. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=omnibus+account&oq=omnibus+account&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59j0i271j69i60l4.1575j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=omnibus+account&oq=omnibus+a...
    - Jasper_ 6y ago
      You do know that events can happen outside of the system, right? Adding more steps to the system won't help.
      - baby 6y ago
        Not sure how you got that from my post.
rorykoehler 6y ago
The $GME situation is a perfect example of where trust broke down which a blockchain solution could solve.
- scott_s 6y ago
  How?
  - rorykoehler 6y ago
    Trading was halted by brokers at a critical time. If trading was done via the blockchain nobody could pull shenanigans like that.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 6y ago
I would not consider it a solution to mistrust, but rather a way to obviate it altogether. Bitcoin is simply a way to achieve consensus about value that is secure and decentralized. Many people consider it a currency, and certainly that is true, but I think it best to consider it a network, or even better, a form of communication. You can 'speak' on the Bitcoin network in very powerful ways. You can broadcast transactions and transfer value with extraordinary security and robustness. Statements like this, without Bitcoin, require enormous effort: legal systems, governments, and ultimately armies. This result is obviously not a technical one, but a social one. It is mediated by technology, but the rules and incentives of participation are social. You trust Bitcoin 'speech' because you understand what motivates network participants and conclude that fraud is phenomenally unlikely. But a society that uses Bitcoin is not suddenly without trust, or even diminished in trust. It simply no longer requires trust for certain things. ____ > Societies with higher levels of trust tend to do better than others Trust, in this sense, could be considered as a resource. More trust lets you do more things. But if you don't require trust for a function, that trust may be used for other purposes. It is in this sense that trust can be considered a liability: you have to 'spend' trust to achieve an end, and thus must maintain its supply. A society that cooperates well can achieve more, but may also be more vulnerable if that trust should wane. To whatever extent trust and cooperation are self-reinforcing, I think history has plenty of examples of such systems collapsing to make this a worthwhile consideration.

by worik 6y ago

baby 6y ago

The answer is transparency: in a cryptographic decentralized system you still have human interactions, but they are in the open (in most systems) and can be verified. This is better than relying on gossiping alone.

Jasper_ 6y ago
No, they're not? You can still have backroom deals with a blockchain, you just don't put the backroom deals on the blockchain.
- baby 6y ago
  It depends what you're doing, and what you're allowing in your system. You're talking about an omnibus account[1] or a trade that hasn't been settled (but will be settled at some point). Depending on your system, there are ways to be less transparent. You also lose the transparency that you could benefit from the system yourself, and there's some limitation to it (the amount of the omnibus account is still visible, and money still moves between omnibus accounts). On the other hand, wherever you are on the spectrum, it is still a more transparent system compared to a blackbox centralized system, or a multitude of blackbox systems trying to settle between one another all the time. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=omnibus+account&oq=omnibus+account&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59j0i271j69i60l4.1575j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=omnibus+account&oq=omnibus+a...
  - Jasper_ 6y ago
    You do know that events can happen outside of the system, right? Adding more steps to the system won't help.
    - baby 6y ago
      Not sure how you got that from my post.

rorykoehler 6y ago

The $GME situation is a perfect example of where trust broke down which a blockchain solution could solve.

scott_s 6y ago
How?
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  Trading was halted by brokers at a critical time. If trading was done via the blockchain nobody could pull shenanigans like that.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 6y ago

I would not consider it a solution to mistrust, but rather a way to obviate it altogether. Bitcoin is simply a way to achieve consensus about value that is secure and decentralized. Many people consider it a currency, and certainly that is true, but I think it best to consider it a network, or even better, a form of communication. You can 'speak' on the Bitcoin network in very powerful ways. You can broadcast transactions and transfer value with extraordinary security and robustness. Statements like this, without Bitcoin, require enormous effort: legal systems, governments, and ultimately armies. This result is obviously not a technical one, but a social one. It is mediated by technology, but the rules and incentives of participation are social. You trust Bitcoin 'speech' because you understand what motivates network participants and conclude that fraud is phenomenally unlikely. But a society that uses Bitcoin is not suddenly without trust, or even diminished in trust. It simply no longer requires trust for certain things. ____ > Societies with higher levels of trust tend to do better than others Trust, in this sense, could be considered as a resource. More trust lets you do more things. But if you don't require trust for a function, that trust may be used for other purposes. It is in this sense that trust can be considered a liability: you have to 'spend' trust to achieve an end, and thus must maintain its supply. A society that cooperates well can achieve more, but may also be more vulnerable if that trust should wane. To whatever extent trust and cooperation are self-reinforcing, I think history has plenty of examples of such systems collapsing to make this a worthwhile consideration.