Craig S Wright
29 abr. 2019 a la(s) 10:33
In the Bitcoin Whitepaper - it is stated that:
"While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. "
This comment is not anti-bank. This is the trust based payment model to the merchant - the one that makes payment require ID and more - see Amazon) and allows a wide mapping of the user to the payment. This section of the whitepaper is aimed at the merchant and concerns the need for a merchant to trust the user. It's not distrusting banks, but the merchant cannot trust a user where credit cards and more allow for reversals. Take gaming, and web content (eg porn). In each case, the user wants fast access (not to wait 60 days and link to an ID).
The anarchist fools have this completely upside down.
If you are a user, then a non-escrow transaction on bitcoin still requires trust. For instance, if you are buying goods, and you pay upfront you do not know about the quality or even if the user will receive these from the merchant. Consequently, we get around trust issues for the user using scripts and the ability to escrow or lock transactions.
This commentary in the paper relates to a merchant or seller of goods. It is not the occupy version of don't trust the banks or merchants and evil capitalists, rather it is exactly the opposite is the merchant selling goods or services or access to a page online that cannot trust the source of funds that is presented to them.
As an example, if you're using a credit card the user can pay for something such as access to a pornographic site, and five minutes later call up and say my credit card has been taken. So in a scenario where Alice pays Bob and Bob as the merchant, it is Bob who has trust issues and not Alice
Craig S Wright
29 abr. 2019 a la(s) 10:33
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1556526806046200
29 abr. 2019 a la(s) 10:33
In the Bitcoin Whitepaper - it is stated that:
"While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. "
This comment is not anti-bank. This is the trust based payment model to the merchant - the one that makes payment require ID and more - see Amazon) and allows a wide mapping of the user to the payment. This section of the whitepaper is aimed at the merchant and concerns the need for a merchant to trust the user. It's not distrusting banks, but the merchant cannot trust a user where credit cards and more allow for reversals. Take gaming, and web content (eg porn). In each case, the user wants fast access (not to wait 60 days and link to an ID).
The anarchist fools have this completely upside down.
If you are a user, then a non-escrow transaction on bitcoin still requires trust. For instance, if you are buying goods, and you pay upfront you do not know about the quality or even if the user will receive these from the merchant. Consequently, we get around trust issues for the user using scripts and the ability to escrow or lock transactions.
This commentary in the paper relates to a merchant or seller of goods. It is not the occupy version of don't trust the banks or merchants and evil capitalists, rather it is exactly the opposite is the merchant selling goods or services or access to a page online that cannot trust the source of funds that is presented to them.
As an example, if you're using a credit card the user can pay for something such as access to a pornographic site, and five minutes later call up and say my credit card has been taken. So in a scenario where Alice pays Bob and Bob as the merchant, it is Bob who has trust issues and not Alice
Craig S Wright
29 abr. 2019 a la(s) 10:33
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1556526806046200
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment