4 ms·

We're in agreement that trust is needed at some point in the system. Cryptocurrencies can be completely internally consistent, but have no relationship to the

We're in agreement that trust is needed at some point in the system. Cryptocurrencies can be completely internally consistent, but have no relationship to the real world. The only way for that relationship to be formed is by trust. But, there is not a single thing in cryptocurrencies that make sense if you are willing to allow for centralization. If you have a centralized system, then you have a limited number of actors allowed to make changes to the ledger. You can establish trust out-of-band, whether that means by passing around gpg keys, by investigating previous banking practices, or by establishing common rules for auditing. After that, there's no need for Proof of Work/Stake/Space/etc, because you can trust the updates coming from the rest of the network. The reason I say that the point of cryptocurrency is trustlessness and decentralization is because the only other alternative is that all the implementers of cryptocurrencies are utter fools not to see the simpler solution. I don't think that is the case. I think they have seen the simpler solution of trusted validators, and have dismissed it out of a fundamental difference in priorities from mine, but I don't think they are fools.

tshaddox 5y ago
I’m not sure what you mean. The centralization being discussed here is out of band and thus the trust is also out of band. It’s no different than your local bar opening a tab for you, or using an escrow service for a construction contract.
- MereInterest 5y ago
  Because once that centralization occurs, the remaining trustlessness doesn't serve a purpose. All that's happened is switching from one centralized system to another, but with a much, much greater overhead. Mind you, I don't mind centralized systems, but the entire marketing of cryptocurrencies for the past decade has been how it is decentralized and outside of the the reach of any entity. We knew this wasn't the case in 2014, when Mt Gox folded and all signs pointed to fraud. We knew this wasn't the case in 2016, when the Dao smart contract was reversed by general appeal. We know it now as mining pools continue to rise. The decentralization is the main selling point of cryptocurrencies, and yet at every turn it is proven false.

tshaddox 5y ago

I’m not sure what you mean. The centralization being discussed here is out of band and thus the trust is also out of band. It’s no different than your local bar opening a tab for you, or using an escrow service for a construction contract.

MereInterest 5y ago
Because once that centralization occurs, the remaining trustlessness doesn't serve a purpose. All that's happened is switching from one centralized system to another, but with a much, much greater overhead. Mind you, I don't mind centralized systems, but the entire marketing of cryptocurrencies for the past decade has been how it is decentralized and outside of the the reach of any entity. We knew this wasn't the case in 2014, when Mt Gox folded and all signs pointed to fraud. We knew this wasn't the case in 2016, when the Dao smart contract was reversed by general appeal. We know it now as mining pools continue to rise. The decentralization is the main selling point of cryptocurrencies, and yet at every turn it is proven false.