Home Blockchain Blockchain News Meaning of ‘trustless’ in blockchain

Meaning of ‘trustless’ in blockchain

Audio version of the article

Blockchain allegedly eliminates the need for trust — but how far is this notion actually true or helpful?

Crypto community members will likely be familiar with mantras such as “Don’t trust, verify!” or the “law of code.” Both refer to the promises of greater transparency and audibility via a technology that offers to replace fallible, corruptible powerful actors with a functional rules-based order secured through deterministic computation.

The desire to dispense with the need to trust third-party actors is a mainstay with many cryptocurrency creators and users. Bitcoin (BTC), after all, was invented in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, and the abuse of authority by powerful actors and institutions continued to make itself felt throughout the Great Recession. Crypto has continued to draw in more and more enthusiasts against the backdrop of social, political and economic crises.

However, a paper published by a group of researchers this August that circulated through the University of Oxford Faculty of Law’s blog on Oct. 27 argues against conceptualizing blockchain as a question of trust — or the absence of such.

Instead, the paper proposes to understand blockchain as a “confidence-machine”: A technology designed to maximize the degree of confidence in the system as a means to, only indirectly, reduce the need for interpersonal trust. The paper’s argument rests on carefully parsing the distinction between trust and confidence, each of which is a complex cluster of ideas in its own right. Yet for all their internal complexity, trust and confidence, each imply a fundamentally different interpretation of the nature of the social environment.

Trust, across its various definitions, presupposes an acknowledgment of risk and uncertainty: One can choose to consciously trust another agent by way of a leap of faith or commitment, or as the outcome of a rational choice, based on the calculation that it is in the interests of a third party to act in a particular way. One can also trust more tacitly, by way of routinized actions, where the backdrop of risk is less explicitly recognized.

Confidence, by contrast, presupposes the predictability of systems or institutions. These predictable systems, in the case of blockchain, refer to the technological design of a protocol (i.e., one that is designed to mint a certain degree of new coins at a given interval), a repository of open-source code, and the mathematical properties of hash functions and public-private key cryptography.

Blockchain systems also attempt to maximize the predictability of a network of actors’ decisions by means of game-theoretical mechanisms and economic incentives, and by the provision of a collectively auditable record of the sequence of actions in a given ecosystem.

In the course of their argument, however, the authors of the paper complicate this view of confidence, which, they claim, rests on a denial that blockchain systems are irreducibly hybrid, involving both social and technical components. They make their case by exploring the real asymmetries in resources and knowledge — and therefore power — among the various actors in blockchain networks, uncovering the mixture of confidence, trust and even faith that is involved in their everyday operations.

“The governance of most blockchain-based systems is highly centralized: on-chain governance is inherently plutocratic, dominated by a few large operators or individuals who control most of the mining resources and/or token holdings, whereas off-chain governance most often operates as a technocracy, with a few influential players dominating both the front-stage and the backstage.”

Rather than evoking an alternative, ideal scenario wherein relationships of dependency and domination could be magically eliminated, the paper concludes with an exploration of what blockchain governance, accurately understood, actually involves, and what it could evolve into if we fully acknowledge the clusters of power that inescapably shape its infrastructure.

This article has been published from the source link without modifications to the text. Only the headline has been changed.

Source link

- Advertisment -

Most Popular

Understanding Nearest Centroids linear classification in Machine Learning

Nearest Centroids is a linear classification machine learning algorithm. It involves predicting a class label for new examples based on which class-based centroid the example...

Development careers that use Python

Over the past few decades, several programming languages ​​have been invented, and many have gained space in the development market. JavaScript, C ++, Swift,...

Data Science Strategies for post Trump Era

Data can be a source of comfort and confidence as the pandemic rages on and the Trump Administration comes to a close. Now that the...

Upcoming opportunities in Crypto

A record-breaking year for DeFi, but can it break away from the negative perceptions around yield farming and pump-and-dump schemes? While 2020 will go down...

Introductory Guide on XCFramework and Swift Package

In WWDC 2019, Apple announced a brand new feature for Xcode 11; the capability to create a new kind of binary frameworks with a special format...

Understanding Self Service Data Management

https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.dataengineeringpodcast.com/podlove/file/704/s/webplayer/c/episode/Episode-159-Isima.mp3 Summary The core mission of data engineers is to provide the business with a way to ask and answer questions of their data. This often...
- Advertisment -