> the trusted party isn't eliminated by blockchain, because someone has to code the implementation of the software
I don't think is relevant in practice, and I think the blockchain does solve this problem regarding double-spending. Yes, there's a centralized set of developers, but that does not seem to be a problem in practice, 13 years in
> The trust 'problem' is overrated, because nothing in this world works without trust.
Bingo, this is the real problem. The world has very few problems where a trusted authority / arbitrator isn't a massive benefit.
Also, saying that "all you have to do to participate in this new trustless economy is to read the spec and implement your own validation node and client, and maintain it as the protocol changes" is a pretty different promise than "just download this app".
Right but you can also solve these with a government regulated exchange and it’s not clear what a blockchain adds
Can I just say, on a rather unrelated note, that this just sounds very toxic and will trigger most people into "defense mode". I understand that "wrong" thoughts and opinions don't come out of nowhere, someone must have produced them, but it just reads so much nicer when the attack is explicitly targeting the opinion, and not the author.
In your other comments in this very thread you're using "Your comment goes in all directions...", "Your example is implemented in...". This is so much nicer! Thanks for going the extra mile! Let's keep the discussion going and reduce the chances of someone getting triggered and starting a flame war.
The trust 'problem' is overrated, because nothing in this world works without trust.