📅 Original date posted:2015-08-08
📝 Original message:>> The point was NOT to trust no-one, the point was to trust everyone, but
keep everyone honest by keeping the ledger open and publicly available.
Trust takes many different forms and is not a binary function. You trust a
surgeon to do an operation and a pilot to fly a jet, but not vice versa. To
trust someone explicitly, you need to know who they are. Most social
structures work without explicit identity and they still function quite
well. For example companies are mostly anonymous to the consumer - if you
buy something in a shop you trust a chain of people producing that good. A
priori there is little reason to trust others, but rather that trust is
already developed through social institutions. Money is one such
institution with specific trust problems, and the history of money is
indeed a very good way to study these problems. Unfortunately in Bitcoin
development such insights are rare to find.
Lightning assumes explicit trust and ID - much like Ripple. That's not
going to work, and I'm surprised that someone with basic knowledge of
crypto doesn't see this problem. Having explicit counter-parties is
something very different from Bitcoin where the entity doing transactions
verification is unknowable and changes all the time. Users of Bitcoin trust
nodes doing the verification because they know it is in their best interest
to be honest. Neither Sidechains nor LT have preserve that important
property, and so IMO there are no good proposals to make Bitcoin scale (if
that is possible at all).
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I didn't say off-chain, and gave an example of on-chain usecase with
> trusted middleman.
>
> So, no, that's not what I meant.
>
> Sent on the go, excuse the brevity.
> Original Message
> From: Adam Back
> Sent: Saturday, 8 August 2015 09:50
> To: Thomas Zander
> Cc: Bitcoin Dev
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] trust
>
> If you are saying that some people are happy trusting other people,
> and so would be perfectly fine with off-chain use of Bitcoin, then we
> agree and I already said that off-chain use case would be a
> constructive thing for someone to improve scale and interoperability
> of in the post you are replying to. However that use case is not a
> strong argument for weakening Bitcoin's security to get to more scale
> for that use case.
>
> In a world where we could have scale and decentralisation, then of
> course it would be nice to provide people with that outlook more
> security than they seem to want. And sometimes people dont understand
> why security is useful until it goes wrong, so it would be a useful
> thing to do. (Like insurance, your money being seized by paypal out
> of the blue etc). And indeed providing security at scale maybe
> possible with lightning like protocols that people are working on.
>
> Adam
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150808/0acd24af/attachment-0001.html>;
Benjamin [ARCHIVE] /
npub17k…sr5tq
2023-06-07 15:46:20
in reply to nevent1q…k35x
Author Public Key
npub17kz55p7ysz4ftvq2xyr2zamc776cygwcm5fdz8ndj3jm5umm65xq4sr5tqPublished at
2023-06-07 15:46:20Event JSON
{
"id": "86c6037fca615f77110b74c74b6ac349b966cd2d1bd4ff223e2649aa329e67e3",
"pubkey": "f5854a07c480aa95b00a3106a17778f7b58221d8dd12d11e6d9465ba737bd50c",
"created_at": 1686152780,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"b963d5ab13b2acf43faead82c65a6f02c30bbf4ba0c154dbc3df5812a94073aa",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"8a77806712afd476beab90607cf0ca4e72890da3b1beb9c970948cd4ef77828d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6f226bd1c86c22aed12ec82cd2dab4b5e2f77fd662ac4e1f881170a12da87bd6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-08\n📝 Original message:\u003e\u003e The point was NOT to trust no-one, the point was to trust everyone, but\nkeep everyone honest by keeping the ledger open and publicly available.\n\nTrust takes many different forms and is not a binary function. You trust a\nsurgeon to do an operation and a pilot to fly a jet, but not vice versa. To\ntrust someone explicitly, you need to know who they are. Most social\nstructures work without explicit identity and they still function quite\nwell. For example companies are mostly anonymous to the consumer - if you\nbuy something in a shop you trust a chain of people producing that good. A\npriori there is little reason to trust others, but rather that trust is\nalready developed through social institutions. Money is one such\ninstitution with specific trust problems, and the history of money is\nindeed a very good way to study these problems. Unfortunately in Bitcoin\ndevelopment such insights are rare to find.\n\nLightning assumes explicit trust and ID - much like Ripple. That's not\ngoing to work, and I'm surprised that someone with basic knowledge of\ncrypto doesn't see this problem. Having explicit counter-parties is\nsomething very different from Bitcoin where the entity doing transactions\nverification is unknowable and changes all the time. Users of Bitcoin trust\nnodes doing the verification because they know it is in their best interest\nto be honest. Neither Sidechains nor LT have preserve that important\nproperty, and so IMO there are no good proposals to make Bitcoin scale (if\nthat is possible at all).\n\nOn Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I didn't say off-chain, and gave an example of on-chain usecase with\n\u003e trusted middleman.\n\u003e\n\u003e So, no, that's not what I meant.\n\u003e\n\u003e Sent on the go, excuse the brevity.\n\u003e Original Message\n\u003e From: Adam Back\n\u003e Sent: Saturday, 8 August 2015 09:50\n\u003e To: Thomas Zander\n\u003e Cc: Bitcoin Dev\n\u003e Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] trust\n\u003e\n\u003e If you are saying that some people are happy trusting other people,\n\u003e and so would be perfectly fine with off-chain use of Bitcoin, then we\n\u003e agree and I already said that off-chain use case would be a\n\u003e constructive thing for someone to improve scale and interoperability\n\u003e of in the post you are replying to. However that use case is not a\n\u003e strong argument for weakening Bitcoin's security to get to more scale\n\u003e for that use case.\n\u003e\n\u003e In a world where we could have scale and decentralisation, then of\n\u003e course it would be nice to provide people with that outlook more\n\u003e security than they seem to want. And sometimes people dont understand\n\u003e why security is useful until it goes wrong, so it would be a useful\n\u003e thing to do. (Like insurance, your money being seized by paypal out\n\u003e of the blue etc). And indeed providing security at scale maybe\n\u003e possible with lightning like protocols that people are working on.\n\u003e\n\u003e Adam\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150808/0acd24af/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "5b048d9b1650fc44d34b4800c9b45ac201174da355609150d9ae5d78f9bb1c2e293b16d5cb8eb41993b4a158e06cc85777191d4ef1c3a37dd787061258d3a984"
}