5 ms·

It is, and I've had a nagging suspicion for a while now that this is the flaw at the heart of cryptocurrency and related phenomena. It's all built on the premis

It is, and I've had a nagging suspicion for a while now that this is the flaw at the heart of cryptocurrency and related phenomena. It's all built on the premise that the answer to "we can't trust existing institutions" is to try and design systems that don't require us to have trust in any actor, but as Sharlin noted, it's difficult to impossible to do anything transactional that doesn't require some level of trust. Perhaps "trust no one" is not actually the right solution to the problem.

TimJRobinson 5y ago
It's the same as open source software, most people don't personally look at the source code of the Linux Kernel, but they trust it more than Windows because they know many thousands of others have looked at it and haven't found issues. Open systems lead to less trust required, because anyone can verify and report issues. Open finance leads to less trust required because anyone can verify and report issues with the smart contracts.
- astrange 5y ago
  Don't the smart contract systems not allow patching, so there's no point in reporting issues?
  - TimJRobinson 5y ago
    Many are upgradeable, though it's the common libraries that people use that matter. The Ethereum ones have been battle hardened over years of exploits so you can use them just like you can build on common Unix primitives to avoid mistakes in new projects.
- pjc50 5y ago
  > anyone can verify and report issues with the smart contracts. .. anyone who finds an issue in a smart contract can just steal it. Potentially all of it. Pseudonymously.
- tata71 5y ago
  > haven't found issues No, they have. https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list.php?vendor_id=33&product_id=47&version_id=0&page=1&hasexp=0&opdos=0&opec=0&opov=0&opcsrf=0&opgpriv=0&opsqli=0&opxss=0&opdirt=0&opmemc=0&ophttprs=0&opbyp=0&opfileinc=0&opginf=0&cvssscoremin=7&cvssscoremax=7.99&year=0&cweid=0&order=1&trc=662&sha=27cc1be095dd1cc4189b3d337cc787289500c13e https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list.php?vendor_id=... That's just less important than running free software to some people. For better or worse.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
The real problem is that if you don't trust the existing system, the normal solution is to patronize a different one. Go trust a bank in Japan or Switzerland or India or Brazil, which has a decent enough reputation but does things differently. But the existing system latches onto any point of centralization in any kind of alternative and uses it to impose the same problematic constraints of the existing system that the alternative was intended to redress. Hence the desire for decentralization. The lack of those pressure points. It would work well enough if we would just have multiple banking systems and let them compete with each other without international pressure to conform to a uniform set of defects, but that isn't what we have. So how do we fix that, if not with this?

TimJRobinson 5y ago

It's the same as open source software, most people don't personally look at the source code of the Linux Kernel, but they trust it more than Windows because they know many thousands of others have looked at it and haven't found issues. Open systems lead to less trust required, because anyone can verify and report issues. Open finance leads to less trust required because anyone can verify and report issues with the smart contracts.

astrange 5y ago
Don't the smart contract systems not allow patching, so there's no point in reporting issues?
- TimJRobinson 5y ago
  Many are upgradeable, though it's the common libraries that people use that matter. The Ethereum ones have been battle hardened over years of exploits so you can use them just like you can build on common Unix primitives to avoid mistakes in new projects.
pjc50 5y ago
> anyone can verify and report issues with the smart contracts. .. anyone who finds an issue in a smart contract can just steal it. Potentially all of it. Pseudonymously.
tata71 5y ago
> haven't found issues No, they have. https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list.php?vendor_id=33&product_id=47&version_id=0&page=1&hasexp=0&opdos=0&opec=0&opov=0&opcsrf=0&opgpriv=0&opsqli=0&opxss=0&opdirt=0&opmemc=0&ophttprs=0&opbyp=0&opfileinc=0&opginf=0&cvssscoremin=7&cvssscoremax=7.99&year=0&cweid=0&order=1&trc=662&sha=27cc1be095dd1cc4189b3d337cc787289500c13e https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list.php?vendor_id=... That's just less important than running free software to some people. For better or worse.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

The real problem is that if you don't trust the existing system, the normal solution is to patronize a different one. Go trust a bank in Japan or Switzerland or India or Brazil, which has a decent enough reputation but does things differently. But the existing system latches onto any point of centralization in any kind of alternative and uses it to impose the same problematic constraints of the existing system that the alternative was intended to redress. Hence the desire for decentralization. The lack of those pressure points. It would work well enough if we would just have multiple banking systems and let them compete with each other without international pressure to conform to a uniform set of defects, but that isn't what we have. So how do we fix that, if not with this?