Wired Author Writes Controversial Piece on Blockchain’s Assurance of a System without Trust is Untrue
A recent article in Wired, an American online magazine, has condemned the assurance of a system without trust by Blockchain. Bruce Schneier, the author of the article, argues that trust is not completely removed but a bit shifted in blockchain networks and systems.
The article explains that trust is fundamentally categorized into four different parts. Schneier says that there is a morals part and also a reputation part. These two have a fundamentally social nature. The third one has to do with regulations and law and have an institutional nature while the last one is in security systems.
More on Trust
Schneier in his piece, challenges public blockchains, explaining that they remove the bulk of trust from social and organizational confines and puts them on technology and further hides the parts that still endure.
Furthermore, the author explains that since the regular user is unable to properly assess and audit the blockchain code by his or her own self because of its difficulty and intricacy, the antitrust networks have to expect complete trust from their own users.
The article continues to say that there needs to be an external system in place for some matters that come up that may not be properly resolved strictly by the usual technical means.
On the Effect of Reputation
Bruce Schneier, in the article, says that the part reputation plays in the business cannot be overemphasized. He says that this is one of the most principal cause factors that decide what networks or platforms that users employ. This specifically has to do with what cryptocurrencies they invest in or what exchange they use. Bruce argues that social reasons will always come up on top when people are deciding. He says,
“For example, some [supply-chain] companies don’t trust the IBM/Maersk system because it’s not their blockchain. Irrational? Maybe, but that’s how trust works. It can’t be replaced by algorithms and protocols. It’s much more social than that.”
Even though Schneier complains about centralization, reports show that Bitcoin (BTC) in the last few years has encouraged a certain openness and competitiveness that makes it less and less prone to attacks. This was achieved through decentralization.