It is better to have a centralized component than to rely on the good will of anonymous peers.
-
@el33th4xor@adam3us@petertoddbtc Fully trusting N>1 is worse than fully trusting 1 for thing trusted.
@el33th4xor @adam3us @petertoddbtc Fully trusting w/money == banks need to secure some other way: protocol itself not providing security.
-
-
.
@NickSzabo4@el33th4xor@adam3us Yep, because banks are fundamentally a human UI for money. They have to. Aunt Tillie's security sucks. -
@NickSzabo4@el33th4xor@adam3us You will only eliminate ID when you eliminate humans. :) ID is an imperfect, human-human shortcut UI. -
@jgarzik@el33th4xor@adam3us Bitcoin already eliminated need for IDs to issue & pay money. Block chain can do for many other txs also. -
@NickSzabo4@el33th4xor@adam3us That covers discrete money xfer but not secure storage for non-technical users. -
@jgarzik@el33th4xor@adam3us A user-friendly hardware wallet doesn't require an ID. -
@NickSzabo4@el33th4xor@adam3us It does however require physical security of tiny, easily stolen/lost h/w device. People want help w/ sec. -
@jgarzik@NickSzabo4@el33th4xor@adam3us Your missing the bigger point: w/ crypto/blockchain ID and recovery is a separate layered service. -
@jgarzik@NickSzabo4@el33th4xor@adam3us But many bank/regulators see trustless systems w/o a *fundamental* need for ID to be unacceptable. - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.