[nomadiccoder]

That quoted paragraph also caught me up upon first read. After I thought about it I do agree that there is some level of trust in the protocol itself and actions of other actors using that protocol can influence that trust. But I suppose that the trust needs to be applied at some level. Trusting end-to-end encryption is a real trust. If someone comes along and finds a way to factor large prime integers the system would break and trust would dissipate.

It seems to me that its about realigning trust in this case. And its easier to trust a process that uses mechanics that force behavior to conform to the properties you desire than to trust a process that uses mechanics to enable behavior to conform to the desired properties. You still have to place trust in both implementations nevertheless.

In the case of Ethereum what is the trust? The protocol, the implementation? What is the trust in a bank? The same but with a bunch of human factors around the enabling the bank to function as you desire.

Settle appears to be a step back and try to solve the problem currency has in general by reverting to a barter system. The purpose of a currency however is to use a common valuation system.

[Ar-Curunir]

> factor large prime integers

factoring large prime integers is very easy =P

[loceng]

Didn't Ethereum very early on push an update that undid a $50 million hack?

[ChrisClark]

Yeah, they figured at that early point in the chain's life, having one hacker control so much of all ETH in existence was worth saving it.

It was a hard coded contract change to fix the exploit. No rollbacks though, the funds that were already stolen, stayed stolen. They had to be 'stolen' back, recovered, using the same hack the hacker was using.

[arcticbull]

Yep, the "trustless for thee but none for thanks" model.

On the plus side the DAO hackers are doing very well for themselves economically, the old chain, Ethereum Classic, is having a moment [1].

[1] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ethereum-classic/