📅 Original date posted:2015-08-08
📝 Original message:> Trust takes many different forms and is not a binary function.
Many Bitcoiners have a rather unusual notion of trust. While many state
the established financial systems cannot be trusted they imply that many
within the Bitcoin world need to be trusted. There are some very
irresponsible and unusual people who have authority to do things in the
Bitcoin world such as manage the Wiki, the Github repository, and are
given an emergency alert key. Some of these people are only known by
some sort of screen name. If anyone questions any of these processes
they are chastised and labeled a "troll". For instance, anyone who
questioned Mt. Gox back in 2013 was labeled a "buttcoiner" or something
similar. So I would say many people, including many on this list, don't
fully understand the claims they are making about the "truslessness" of
Bitcoin.
>Lightning doesn't require explicit trust,
There seems to be semantic issues with describing trust and the
lightning network. You need to trust the other party during the
transactions in the channel for it to work. Yes there is way to cash
out if the other party does not cooperate but that is not the same thing
as saying it is trustless. Many people are confused about this part of
decentralization where the network has to take time to reach consensus.
Some people think that you can use some kind of technological trick to
avoid this lag time and still have a completely trustless system. It is
a tradeoff.
Russ
Milly Bitcoin [ARCHIVE] /
npub1rv…hc5wt
2023-06-07 19:34:23
in reply to nevent1q…sm95
Author Public Key
npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wtPublished at
2023-06-07 19:34:23Event JSON
{
"id": "f79fa22aa84a0626faec20907bfe6f8ca1249d624aa2f7edb416ae02c4b3f1fa",
"pubkey": "1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50",
"created_at": 1686159263,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8287fb098149738a433b7bc4acef5eade09e0f2c6dee917fd5ff21406103ee42",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"41e81f8b7fc942453ec29e34ebc760254f143001a07517ba77b47a703b4b772c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ccb4cc87c455b74febaee5929cfd0726421b2eea64ad2b16440b68e8c7433211"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-08\n📝 Original message:\u003e Trust takes many different forms and is not a binary function.\n\nMany Bitcoiners have a rather unusual notion of trust. While many state \nthe established financial systems cannot be trusted they imply that many \nwithin the Bitcoin world need to be trusted. There are some very \nirresponsible and unusual people who have authority to do things in the \nBitcoin world such as manage the Wiki, the Github repository, and are \ngiven an emergency alert key. Some of these people are only known by \nsome sort of screen name. If anyone questions any of these processes \nthey are chastised and labeled a \"troll\". For instance, anyone who \nquestioned Mt. Gox back in 2013 was labeled a \"buttcoiner\" or something \nsimilar. So I would say many people, including many on this list, don't \nfully understand the claims they are making about the \"truslessness\" of \nBitcoin.\n\n \u003eLightning doesn't require explicit trust,\n\nThere seems to be semantic issues with describing trust and the \nlightning network. You need to trust the other party during the \ntransactions in the channel for it to work. Yes there is way to cash \nout if the other party does not cooperate but that is not the same thing \nas saying it is trustless. Many people are confused about this part of \ndecentralization where the network has to take time to reach consensus. \n Some people think that you can use some kind of technological trick to \navoid this lag time and still have a completely trustless system. It is \na tradeoff.\n\nRuss",
"sig": "923ba46fcc2ac88d8671d52511c72a889ccfef104ed5f0c6ee385f02f3a83800e79fa13c31619e5442fa183551257bbe3f45b2df613868c2892c5285aabddef0"
}