4 ms·

I really don't understand this usage of the word "trust". Especially when one of the actual primary uses of bitcoin as currency (and not speculative investing)

by jmcqk6 6y ago

I really don't understand this usage of the word "trust". Especially when one of the actual primary uses of bitcoin as currency (and not speculative investing) so far has been to pay off ransomware. Who exactly am I trusting? The person I'm transacting with - a transaction that I have no hope of reversing if something goes wrong? Please, if you can be specific about exactly what is meant by "trust" here, I would greatly appreciate it.

sneak 6y ago
The ransomware thing is a red herring. The trust is not related to the counterparty- the trust is in the ledger itself. Once you have the tokens, you know you have them, and as long as your keys are secure, that fact remains true. That's not the case with any other monetary or payment system or store of value. You can trust that your balance in your account is what the blockchain says it is, and that nobody but someone in possession of those keys can use it.
- jmcqk6 6y ago
  is there some widespread issue with trusting the ledgers of banks currently? I wasn't aware that this is a pressing issue, or really an issue at all. >You can trust that your balance in your account is what the blockchain says it is, and that nobody but someone in possession of those keys can use it. And there are definite risks around that too. This really feels like a solution in search of a problem to me.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Some would think so. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/04/paypal-shuts-down-wikileaks-account https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/04/paypal-shuts-d... There are also many restrictions on how, why, when, and where transfers from those accounts can be made. There is no trust in an institution required, because you know the blockchain will carry out your wishes regardless of any other factors.
    - jmcqk6 6y ago
      >carry out your wishes regardless of any other factors. It will carry out your inputs regardless of other factors. That is a very important distinction, especially in this case.
      - kerng 6y ago
        Yes, some call this "Code is Law" - it is blind to race, social status or how much money you have.

by jmcqk6 6y ago

sneak 6y ago

The ransomware thing is a red herring. The trust is not related to the counterparty- the trust is in the ledger itself. Once you have the tokens, you know you have them, and as long as your keys are secure, that fact remains true. That's not the case with any other monetary or payment system or store of value. You can trust that your balance in your account is what the blockchain says it is, and that nobody but someone in possession of those keys can use it.

jmcqk6 6y ago
is there some widespread issue with trusting the ledgers of banks currently? I wasn't aware that this is a pressing issue, or really an issue at all. >You can trust that your balance in your account is what the blockchain says it is, and that nobody but someone in possession of those keys can use it. And there are definite risks around that too. This really feels like a solution in search of a problem to me.
- sneak 6y ago
  Some would think so. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/04/paypal-shuts-down-wikileaks-account https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/04/paypal-shuts-d... There are also many restrictions on how, why, when, and where transfers from those accounts can be made. There is no trust in an institution required, because you know the blockchain will carry out your wishes regardless of any other factors.
  - jmcqk6 6y ago
    >carry out your wishes regardless of any other factors. It will carry out your inputs regardless of other factors. That is a very important distinction, especially in this case.
    - kerng 6y ago
      Yes, some call this "Code is Law" - it is blind to race, social status or how much money you have.