That is a common misconception and, it would appear, one that’s purposefully cultivated. You need to trust at least three things: that the math doesn’t have som

That is a common misconception and, it would appear, one that’s purposefully cultivated. You need to trust at least three things: that the math doesn’t have some sort of loophole, that the code you are running does what it sais on the tin and does so flawlessly and that the network works they way it is supposed to with no party gaining sufficient leverage. None of this can be taken for granted. I’m not arguing that you _can’t_ trust these things, I’m saying you must trust them to be true. For a layman, the model really is no different than trusting a bank: they have no capability to validate the math and the software just comes from some central source along with the network governance. In addition, they’d need to trust the exchange they use and there’s little practical difference left with just sticking with money. But, hey, it’s technology so it must be good, right?