Bitcoin: Trustlessness & Backing

7 550
Avatar for Mictorrani
2 years ago

In this article, I will discuss two questions: what is “trustlessness” and why is it so important, and why is “backing" of a cryptocurrency a bad idea?

Trustlessness

We say about Bitcoin that it is trustless. What does that mean?

When you have money in a bank, you have to trust the bank to protect your money and information about it. You have no control though. They can do whatever they want with it, but you trust them.

When you send emails via – say – Gmail, you trust them to store and deliver as they are supposed to. But you have no saying in what they really do. It is completely based on trust, a trust that in Gmail's case has been shamelessly betrayed.

Likewise, if you leave a letter with the Postal Service, it is a system of trust. You trust them to deliver your letter.

When you have cash in your pocket, you are responsible for keeping it safe, or you will lose it. If you do, it is your own fault. You have not trusted anyone else. Cash in your pocket is trustless. No one can betray that trust, since there isn't anyone.

Trust-based services are susceptible to bribery, threat, or blackmailing. That means, you cannot entirely trust anyone with really important things. Traditionally trust-based services are held in check by law and the possibility of law enforcement; if a bank steals your money, you take it to court. Already at that stage, law is insufficient to protect against damage caused by breach of trust, since the representatives of state and law are those who protect it the least. But when it comes to the internet it becomes even worse. You cannot trust a website at the other end of the world to do what it says it will do! The only way to be sure that you and no one else controls important things such as your money or your privacy, is that these things can be handled trustlessly – that is, that no one else has even a remote possibility to breach any trust.

A trustless digital system must never have a central point; decentralisation of the system is a prerequisite – as is properly applied cryptography. Bitcoin is a breakthrough in trustlessness, since for the first time it offers a digital version of what in the physical world is cash. It is trustless. What you have and what you do with it is no one's business but your own, and no one can freeze your assets, confiscate or tax them beyond the level you allow, because there is no third party involved.

Most bitcoin users do indeed avail themselves to third party services, thereby eliminating the trustlessness in their own dealings. But so you can do with cash as well, when you, for instance, entrust it to a bank. The point is that the bitcoin system is trustless, you do not have to trust any third party unless you actively choose to do so.

Backing

There is recurrent criticism of that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are lacking tangible backing. This is one way bankers and politicians try to discredit cryptocurrencies and scare people away. To some extent the general public believe this to be a weakness. Many say that a cryptocurrency should be backed by gold, then it would be trustworthy, and that's why stable coins turned up. They have a “backing”, and they miss the whole point. Any tangible backing would in practice be controlled by one or other government, which could simply confiscate it at any time; with it, Bitcoin would lose one of its most important features. The lack of physical backing is one of Bitcoin's major strengths, because there is nothing a government can steal.

For many people, it is still a fixed idea that digital "currencies" must be based on gold and that the question was only a matter of finding a safe place to store the gold. We don't know why it is so hard for most people to realise that no such place exists and that safe solutions must be based on a principle of "no jurisdiction". The reliance on the state is deeply rooted, it is taken for granted, questioned only by a few.

For the same reason, whatever is held digitally cannot be in a physical location. It would be dependent on the government of that location. That's where a distributed system comes in handy.

It is interesting to see critics of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies over and over again presenting perceived weaknesses that are, in fact, strengths. There are problems with Bitcoin which have to be solved, but that it lacks tangible backing is not one of them.

Copyright © 2013/2014. 2021 Meleonymica. All Rights Reserved.

(Thumbnail by tombark/Pixabay, CC0/Public Domain.)

Here you find all my writings about privacy & antibigbrotherism, including a few articles about crypto.

You find all my writings on Read.Cash, sorted by topic, here.

My 5 most recent articles:

Biographical Details or Not? Art & Bitcoin

Suggested Reading 15

Food Preservation & The Paradox of Canned Food

New Year's Resolutions & Vows of the Peacock

Suggested Reading 14

13
$ 18.25
$ 17.91 from @TheRandomRewarder
$ 0.05 from @Jnavedan
$ 0.05 from @Gemstone
+ 7
Sponsors of Mictorrani
empty
empty
Avatar for Mictorrani
2 years ago

Comments

Nice article. I would also argue that part of the backing behind Bitcoin is the Blockchain itself. Micheal Saylor often mentions how the Blockchain is stored economic activity (in the form of energy spent by miners). So many people have a vested interest in the integrity of the blockchain. So the backing is the "insane / never seen before in human history" cooperation of miners to maintain that blockchain and increase it's length.

So basically, we've already spent so much energy making this blockchain (which is increasingly important), that it serves as a backing.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Yes, you are right, one can see it so.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Most of these governments are secretly into crypto too, but they want to divert the public attention from it so they will only rely on a hard currency

$ 0.00
2 years ago

My dear friend, i don't think the bitcoin and other mass cryptos out there have a fault in being trusted and not trusted but the government's and their cohorts bad actors who seem to see bitcoin and other cryptos out there as a direct challenge to their financial capabilities to stand the test of time. The world of the cryptos for all we know is a defi and as such, does not require all the bottle necks with which the financial institutions are known for which therefore establishes a fair returns on investment without any third party approving how buying and selling should be done. The bad actors (the banks and other financial institutions) are the ones 100% behind the seeing of the bitcoin and other cryptos as not an assured and a secured financial investment given their strong governmental connections and a sole desire to stay at the helm of affairs and control the people's spendings while they take a chunck out of their hard earned money in form of the bank drafts and the stamp duties they charge on some daily, weekly and monthly basis and which of course leads to their ban in some countries.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

It's not about cryptos being trusted or not trusted, it is about using or not using third parties.

Otherwise I agree to everything you say here.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

If bitcoin is trustlessness, it means we shouldn't into it not unless if we are knowledgeable enough. Anyway, thank you for sharing this.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

If you use it trustlessly (no third parties), you have full responsibility for what you do with it. There is nobody to blame if you cannot handle it.

$ 0.00
2 years ago