6 ms·
Courts and lawyers are the opposite of trusting who you're doing business with. If you actually trusted them, there would be no need for courts. The "I don't t
by everfree 4y ago
Courts and lawyers are the opposite of trusting who you're doing business with. If you actually trusted them, there would be no need for courts.
The "I don't trust you" market consists of everyone who does business using written contracts. So, nearly everyone.
- short_sells_poo 4y agoI'm sorry but this is a take I completely disagree with. Fundamentally, I do business with people I trust. If I don't trust someone, I'll simply never do business with them. No amount of bullet proof mathematical constructs will change this. Now, I may trust someone now, but circumstances change. People change. I don't trust the universe to be constant. I thus want to enshrine agreements in contracts and and I want there to be institutions that can offer objective (within reason) arbitration in case my counterparty and I come to disagree in the future. I don't know what sort of business you operate in, but in my industry, trust is paramount and is practically equivalent to capital. You'll simply not even be employed unless you are trusted. It takes a long time to build a track record and you can lose it in the matter of seconds if you make poor decisions. So yes, IMO the world operates fundamentally on the basis of trust. I don't believe for a moment that long term successful business can be conducted in an environment without fundamental trust between counterparties. Again, trust does not equal blindly taking people at their word or neglecting due diligence. "Trust, but verify" is the saying.
- everfree 4y ago> Now, I may trust someone now, but circumstances change. People change. Trust is inherently a forwards-looking thing. If you don't trust someone not to change in a way that breaks the promises they've made to you, that's not trust at all. > Fundamentally, I do business with people I trust. > I don't know what sort of business you operate in Software industry. When employers have tried to screw me out of things they promised me, I've pointed to sections of written contracts (with the unspoken understanding of a lawsuit if their side of the contract is not upheld) and it's saved me multiple times. These companies just don't care about what they promised you, you can't trust them, they only respond to the looming threat of legal action. On the flip side, I've been screwed before at those times where I didn't keep a meticulous paper trail. The last one was particularly tough because I thought I had made close friends with the person I was doing business with, and I genuinely thought they could be trusted, but they ended up stiffing me out of payment in the end. In the software industry and in particular working at start-ups, promises are worth jack shit unless they're in a written contract. Nobody trusts anyone to uphold promises. I would love to work in an industry where people could trust each other to uphold their word. What industry are you in?
- thwayunion 4y ago> Courts and lawyers are the opposite of trusting who you're doing business with. Courts are extremely expensive and time-consuming. Contracts are definitely not the opposite of trusting who you're doing business with. If you do not trust someone to fulfill their side of a contract, you probably don't bother writing up the contract. The contract is there to punish breach of trust, not to establish trust. Security is the opposite of trusting who you're doing business with. There's a reason super markets -- the most common type of business operating without high trust -- employ loss prevention professionals. Notice that the blockchain offers no substantive defense to a five finger discount...
- everfree 4y ago> The contract is there to punish breach of trust, not to establish trust. If someone can only be trusted under threat of punishment, that means that they aren't actually trustworthy in the first place. I think we might have different definitions of trust. If I fully trust someone, to me that means that I know there's no need for the threat of court at all, because I can be sure that they will uphold their word even if it's in their better financial interest to break it.
- lottin 4y agoWe place trust in the courts of justice so we don't have trust every single party that we interact with. If the courts of justice or the government at large cannot be trusted, then society cannot function, and no amount of cryptography or technology of any kind can fix that.