[bendtheblock]

but what's the benefit of these?

- decentralised: why is this good?

- trustless: I trust the companies I use, it works

- censure resistance: OK, fringe case for most

- pseudonymous: why do I want anyone to be able to see my transaction history?

[olalonde]

- decentralised: why is this good?

Imagine a world where the web is controlled by a single entity, say Facebook. They get to decide who is allowed to create a website. They get to decide how much it cost. If they're not happy with the site's content, they can take it offline. Do you believe that would be a better world to live in?

- trustless: I trust the companies I use, it works

That's because there's usually no alternative. But when there's a trustless alternative, you may find that it is less risky or costly. Many people chose e2e encrypted messengers because they don't trust a third party with their private messages.

- censure resistance: OK, fringe case for most

"[...] Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

It may be fringe but it's a massive issue for those who are censored. It's also not that uncommon. It is estimated that there are over 1 billion unbanked people worldwide. Also, try "PayPal horror stories" on Google.

- pseudonymous: why do I want anyone to be able to see my transaction history?

What parent meant is you can transact with people without knowing their real identity. I could send you a BTC tip on HN without knowing your name or address. Regarding your concern about privacy, no one can really determine your transaction history by looking at the blockchain. It's possible to do some guessing but all you really see are transactions going from opaque addresses to other opaque addresses with no attached identity information. Also, this can be further solved with CoinJoin[0].

[0] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CoinJoin

[dmitriid]

> you may find that it is less risky or costly. Many people chose e2e encrypted messengers because they don't trust a third party with their private messages

Private messages are not money. Example: you ordered some goods and those arrived in bad shape. What's your recourse in the trustless world?

[olalonde]

There are some semi-trustless systems that work with escrows [0]. But realistically, an arbitration system does indeed require a trusted party.

There is no trustless world, just a world where trustless is an option and where "trustful" systems can be built on trustless foundations.

[0] Those systems give some guarantees about the trusted party (e.g. that they can't just run with the money).

[dmitriid]

> where the "trustful" systems are built on trustless foundations.

You cannot build trust on a trustless foundation. As, again, the crypto world is busy rediscovering.

[olalonde]

What do you mean by that? I don't see why there couldn't be a centralized service offering payment dispute arbitration on top of Bitcoin (this is what I meant by building "trustful" systems being built on top of trustless foundations).

[dmitriid]

> why there couldn't be a centralized service offering payment dispute arbitration on top of Bitcoin

What exactly does Bitcoin provide in this case?

> this is what I meant by building "trustful" systems being built on top of trustless foundations

So, a service that exists outside bitcoin, has a trust system built entirely outside bitcoin and only doing something with bitcoin because reasons... is "building trustful systems on top of trustless systems".

I don't think you know what "building on top" means.

Edit: grammar and mobile typos

[Empact]

> The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. Their massive overhead costs make micropayments impossible.

— Satoshi, 2009-02-11 https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/p2pfoundation/1/...

> pseudonymous: why do I want anyone to be able to see my transaction history?

Transactions are viewable in the blockchain so that every party involved can audit the system and confirm the issuance.

[cortesoft]

> Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve.

Right, which is why we have regulations on reserve requirements for banks, as well as things like FDIC insurance that guarantees your money in a bank account.

[imtringued]

>The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work.

Surely this is a joke? Most currencies enjoy a high degree of trust until they collapse due to structural reasons that have nothing to do with trust whatsoever.

The euro zone and the dollar show that there is practically no shortage of trust whatsoever.

Seriously, this dude is supposed to liberate us from the evils of money?

How did it come to this? The root problem with currency is the zero lower bound of interest and liquidity preference which both combined result in permanently positive interest rates. When you refuse to pay interest, the economy stagnates and it can result in mass unemployment. This has nothing to do with trust. The Bitcoin economy is plagued with mass unemployment. The insanity of unemployment is a consequence of the insanity of non neutral money. Alternatively, you can pay interest, however this means you must perpetually borrow more money, e.g. Keynesian fiscal stimulus, notice that the insanity originates in money itself, not in the political response, the political response must be at least as insane as the money system, no less and it collapses. Now, there is a third way, QE aka not bothering to ask people whether they want to lend their money out, however, due to liquidity preference, the additionally created money will stagnate somewhere, meaning you can't ever stop QE. Again, in this case the insanity is a structural property of the currency, the monetary intervention has to be as insane as the money system and no less.

The apparent untrustworthiness of politicians is the result of the insanity of money, not the other way around. If money worked properly, you wouldn't need politicians to mess with it, you wouldn't even consider trust to be the problem because the amount needed would be so miniscule as to never matter in the grand scheme of things.

It is really strange to me, that people notice a constant problem with money and yet they still come up with the same conclusion "you're holding it wrong", what if it is impossible to hold it properly? What if permanent money is irreparably broken and forces its own debasement and all the other problems?

[dmitriid]

> Satoshi, 2009-02-11

Yes. Because society is built in trust. Something crypto world is busy rediscovering.