1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E9887AD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:45:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f173.google.com (mail-io0-f173.google.com
[209.85.223.173])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E873A1B0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:45:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iodb91 with SMTP id b91so123820956iod.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=nSBc1zsK+FTeTBCCjTGwtezhPVNygBboJHb7VX9DgSo=;
b=NnqqYwzUmqfBU6Hfm+IEk4jbO/BBkvukUq+I1z5c6PMG58bMolO8KFLySk3LhW8K5r
/arLzcAp2BhlfHuuVdqqfF2GJVQGPWOmAE2MVNVaZjjTYUszOniV17+tw+NwvYVvwyVq
oSdJtb8y8Ln43EKIAUE/RbrHyB8vi4/Z6Jdeu5r5dZ6pZxyXDykJnNmQmcliZkPxSXC6
HXYLu0ioP6oB4NfAAUkTLA+MwTSi7AW9V3iIrUZRAmDYc3eOxoZFFZG8VMGzprQ7zGFx
AfjI4YSp2qWUq7MRHBKbzjPykkmhLzYGZOKGH85OHpRBpxkqEPcy9Cyf1qD5exy556fS
k5Hg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.137.195 with SMTP id t64mr22568614ioi.150.1439243157278;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.14.136 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8185694.hShCHQnpze@coldstorage>
References: <8185694.hShCHQnpze@coldstorage>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:45:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQhyUNgxa0y2DJhvEL801wMh6eavp_QHCbL2E6jOJUVyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] trust
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:45:58 -0000
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The idea that Bitcoins very reason for existence is to avoid trusting anyone
> but yourself is something I've heard before, and I have to comment because it
> is a destructive thought. It is very much untrue because we don't live in a
> black/white world.
[...]
> 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.
I think you are drawing a disction that does not exist; rather it's a
disagreement about terminology.
If a system exists that provides high confidence of faithful behavior
even from malicious parties, then it's one this community would call
"trustless" (assuming the security properties are strong enough).
The result is a system where it's possible to trust everyone.
Trust in this case has multiple meanings. In one meaning trust is an
(well founded) expectation of faithful behavior. In another it is a
blind reliance. When "trust everyone" is used, it's speaking to the
first definition, when the trustless definition is used it's referring
to the second defintion-- without blind faith.
A trustless (second def) system allows its users to trust (first def)
everyone, even the inherently untrustworthy (second def). In doing
so, the considerable cost and inequality created by the maintaince of
trust (second definition) relations is mitigated, and the availablity
of faithful performance increased. Doing so is a prerequsite to
having a strongly decenteralized system, because otherwise trust
requiremets drive the enviroment towards natural monopolies (as it's
cheaper and more effective for more people to trust (second def) a
smaller number of parties.
Less philosophically, if you're willing to have systems defined by
trust (first definition) (e.g. you do not believe that what I descibed
above coveys value, or hope that witl a small number of very trusted
parties external factors will transform blind faith into a rational
expectation of faithful performance) then there are _much_ more
technically superior ways to structure a system than Bitcoin does
today-- ones that acheive much greater performance, flexibility,
reliablity, and better security (ignoring any insecurity that arises
as a result of the trusted parties strong assumptions).
If one wants to layer trust based things on top of a trust mitigating
framework, they can do so-- and enjoy efficiencies from doing so.
Doing the converse doesn't appear really possible.
|
