[aidanlister]

Why isn’t it a waste? You say it like it is a fact ... what’s the logic there?

[trickstra]

"Waste" is when there is no benefit. But here the benefit is decentralized, trustless, robust digital currency.

[ben_w]

I see no benefit in a trustless currency: If I have no trust in a currency, why should I trust the goods/services?

I see no benefit in a decentralised currency: gold is one (anyone can mine it) and there’s a reason we moved away from it.

I don’t buy that bitcoin is either decentralised (they who control the algorithm steering committee control the currency); trustless (why should I trust irreversible transactions? Why should I trust those who wrote my wallet? Why should I trust those that wrote my mining app?); nor robust (the domain of money is law, not logic, so always subject to government interference; the price is currently highly volatile; and apps always have bugs yet to be discovered).

[trickstra]

Trustless currency means exactly the opposite of what you think. It means you don't need to trust anyone, because everything can be proven and verified mathematically without any authoritative figure that you'd have to trust. That's why you can trust the system itself.

And I'm sorry, I won't address your other points.

[ben_w]

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood my point.

Let’s say I buy a widget. How can I trust that the widget will arrive? That it will do what widgets do? That it will not break? None of these are payment issues, but they might call for a refund. How can I get a refund? How can the refund system be resistant to abuse?

The answers we currently have are “the law”. If the law functions, I don’t need a trustless currency.

[trickstra]

If I have a choice between math or "the law" as for which functions more reliably, my bet is on the math.

[ben_w]

How does your maths enforce arbitrary quality control assurances? How does it guarantee refunds for breaches of contract?