[DyslexicAtheist]

it's impossible to talk about trust without talking about cryptography.

from an implementation pov "trust" is a distraction where anyone can quickly derail any argument citing "Trusting Trust" or "the show me the root of trust" ...

So to avoid meta-discussions talking about cryptography instead of trust skips the noise and goes straight to the heart of the issue.

Consider this:

  - Talking about cryptography is hard but it's unambiguous. 
  - Talking about trust is easy but ambiguous. 

Cryptography forces us to look at the reality of implementation instead of a "meta-psychological concept" from meat space. Problem with talking about trust in engineering is that we like to lift things from meatspace and model it within the digital space.

But we forget trust isn't "a thing", it constantly changes, it's useful only as a tool to accept randomness/chaos of life. And so we'll perpetually fail when discussing trust in the digital space or try to pin it down in order to allow converting it into a spec or an implementation.

And I think Moxie understands this and so skips the noise by going straight to cryptography which is the only "tool" that is meaningful when we talk about the things we base trust assumptions on (cia triad).

[walterbell]

Instead of cookie warnings, could every NFT/web3/crypt0 discussion be preceded by a warning about implicit trust?

[DyslexicAtheist]

we need to bring back "Clippy" but instead of a paperclip it's the ghost of Ken Thompson chasing your mouse pointer around and slapping it with a copy of "Trusting Trust".