[AnthonyMouse]

When people say "trust" in the context of Bitcoin, it's about not having to trust a middle man, e.g. PayPal, who are notorious for capriciously locking you out of your account and stealing your money, or denying service to marginalized populations.

It doesn't mean you can't get ripped off by the party you're transacting with directly, but neither does cash, unless you pay for some kind of insurance. Which you can also do with cryptocurrency.

Credit cards come with a form insurance built in, but that doesn't mean you're not paying for it (they charge fees), including when you trust your counterparty and don't want to pay extra for insurance on a low-risk transaction.

[JohnFen]

> When people say "trust" in the context of Bitcoin, it's about not having to trust a middle man

That's all fine if you're a cryptocurrency guy, but in terms of what ordinary people mean by "trust", I don't see how cryptocurrency removes "the need for reputation and trust." You still need those things.

> neither does cash

True. Which is why cash also has a need for reputation and trust.

All I'm asserting is that the need to trust people is not eliminated by using cryptocurrency. How is my assertion wrong?

[AnthonyMouse]

Someone says that TLS secures your credit card number when buying things online. Which it does.

You say that it doesn't do that, because someone could break into your house and install a hidden camera to capture you entering in your credit card number and it doesn't prevent that.

But you use other things to prevent that. That isn't the kind of security that TLS claims to provide.

And notably, there aren't a lot of alternatives to the kind of trust that blockchains would allow you to avoid placing in the likes of PayPal.