Trustless = you don't have to trust anyone. So stop talking about "rational actors." A trustless system should handle irrationality as well.
-
-
Replying to @JamesGDAngelo
@JamesGDAngelo It should if it existed. But there's no such thing as a completely trustless system.1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @NickSzabo4
@JamesGDAngelo That said, if the "rational actor" assumption is the sole basis for declaring a system secure, it's certainly not secure.1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NickSzabo4
@JamesGDAngelo The first and most important line of analysis must be protecting against as many arbitrarily malicious actors as possible.1 reply 3 retweets 1 like
@JamesGDAngelo Only when that analysis reaches its limits should one fall back on less robust assumptions for the remaining fraction.
2:15 PM - 12 Mar 2016
0 replies
2 retweets
2 likes
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.