Some quotes from the original Bitcoin paper with regards to the question of
trust and mediation.

"The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum
practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual
transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make
non-reversible payments for non- reversible services. With the possibility
of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their
customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise
need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs
and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical
currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications
channel without a trusted party."

"Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus
mechanism"


On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Benjamin Cordes <
benjamin.l.cordes@???> wrote:

> "Instead, we have the opportunity to re-imagine almost everything about
> how to do commerce, and then go and actually implement that in code"
>
> Code gets written by people who have beliefs. Protocols are higher order
> descriptions. Some of the categorical errors with regards to how economic
> transactions work are really comical. To use an analogy: if ten people
> declare an independent state, what validity does that declaration have? If
> I broadcast to the world: "I own 1 metric ton of gold", that does not make
> it so. It is through a system, which makes these declarations valid. In the
> Bitcoin network the declaration: I own 1 BTC, is valid. But that statement
> refers only to the virtual entity of Bitcoin. No other legal entities can
> be created this way. The Bitcoin network does not know of concepts such as
> a purchase contract, a service contract, an asset, a loan, etc. If I order
> the philosophic works of Diderot from a book store, I expect a certain
> result, namely that a new book is delivered on time, with a certain
> quality. This process works, because civilization is set up so that some
> properties are ensured (rights and obligations). Some of these newer
> systems with assurance are very far away from delivering such
> "functionality". It is the question what this really would mean. The only
> really sound work in this direction that I am aware of is Mike Hearn's, but
> there some major conceptual things missing there.
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Andrew Miller <amiller@???> wrote:
>
>> It's totally non-trivial how to use blockchain stuff to accomplish all
>> this, but I think it's possible. It goes far beyond the scope of "move
>> value from A to B," which is why it requires a lot more thought.
>>
>> I like to link to these two academic papers a lot, they are the most
>> relevant theory IMO on how decentralized contract enforcement could
>> work.
>>
>> http://dimitrietal.com/trustdavis.pdf TrustDavis is a system of peer
>> to peer insurance. You can think of it as p2p escrow. Its very much
>> unlike the (impotent) escrows we see in Bitcoin today. For one thing,
>> the escrow does not insure strangers, it only makes sense to insure
>> people you trust. Second, the insurer *himself* may have to cover the
>> difference if there's a dispute and it's not possible to tell which
>> party is lying. You can opt to insure *a pair* of people transacting
>> and not just an individual to transact with anyone.
>>
>> http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~szeidl/papers/socialcollateral.pdf This is
>> an economics paper that makes the argument that p2p credit actually
>> *describes* how people *already* make transactions. It has a
>> theoretical model, but, unlike TrustDavis, it assumes that if there's
>> a dispute, everyone learns *correctly* which party is at fault. This
>> is not realistic for an online transaction, and it doesn't say how an
>> online transaction system would help.
>>
>> Implementing TrustDavis would be a start. The idea of actually making
>> yourself financially vulnerable (though in limited amounts) to your
>> friends seems to scare most people away... but that's what makes this
>> work. It's less clear how to make it work for anonymous transactions
>> that rely on collateral moving along preestablished links yet protect
>> privacy by obscuring the details.
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Larimer
>> <dlarimer@???> wrote:
>> > The key to freedom is eliminating the need for courts to enforce
>> contracts.
>> > Giving the government even this single task already creates courts
>> outside
>> > the consent of the governed. From this monopoly over interpreting and
>> > enforcing (or not enforcing) contracts all other power of government
>> can be
>> > derived.
>> >
>> > Courts, Democracies and governments are all evolutions that enhance
>> tyranny
>> > by hiding it behind a mask of legitimacy and fairness. None of these
>> > systems has worked to enhance freedom or to protect the life, liberty,
>> or
>> > property of the people. At the core of monopoly courts is the
>> authority to
>> > reallocate property without the consent of the owners. At the core of
>> > democracy is that the majority can reallocate resources of the minority.
>> > At the core of government is that they own everything and may kill whom
>> they
>> > like.
>> >
>> > I contend that it is unnecessary to rely on coercion to enforce
>> contracts or
>> > maintain law and order. This means that it is possible to operate
>> without
>> > the need for government courts and the key to all of this is
>> decentralized
>> > identity, reputation, arbitration, and surety bonds. Almost all of
>> this
>> > can be implemented with block-chain based consensus with a proper set of
>> > rules.
>> >
>> > I am working on making this a reality and would love to work with others
>> > interested in the same.
>> >
>> > Non Violent Law Enforcement:
>> > https://the-iland.net/content/nonviolent-law-enforcement
>> > Our Socialist Justice System:
>> > https://the-iland.net/content/socialist-justice-system
>> >
>> > Dan
>> >
>> > On Nov 2, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Benjamin Cordes <
>> benjamin.l.cordes@???>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > "I prefer to keep Bitcoin pure, simple and focused. Value transfer from
>> A ?
>> > B. "
>> >
>> > Almost all meaningful economic transactions involve third parties.
>> > Governments and courts evolved for precisely this reason. Contracts are
>> > enforced by the law (and thereby the power of the state, as Mike pointed
>> > out). The question very much remains how Bitcoin improves at all on
>> economic
>> > transactions. I think there is a lot of confusion about this, to put it
>> > mildly. Much of what is written is not very well intellectually
>> grounded.
>> > Courts, democracies, governments evolved over roughly 1000 years.
>> >
>> > Mastercoin and BIP70 are good examples of how the Bitcoin community
>> really
>> > fails to acknowledge some basic fundamental principles of how economic
>> > transactions and contracts work. Which is why we haven't really seen any
>> > major new use case, besides those which involve activities which bypass
>> laws
>> > (donating to political organizations which Visa & Mastercard don't
>> like).
>> > Bitcoin is very far away from changing any of this, especially if does
>> not
>> > add any layers which make it useful. However, once such layers would
>> exist
>> > the potential is almost unbounded.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:38 PM, jamileh s.t. <xiaziyna@???>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> a single signal,
>> >> far too old to hear
>> >> uncountable and yet more mutable
>> >> than mere breathing and vanishing,
>> >> too minimal for death.
>> >> singular and yet a unity
>> >> a multitude of the single celled
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 31 October 2013 11:48, Amir Taaki <genjix@???> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >> >>> very busy, hard to keep up with email. both your explanations are
>> >>> correct. imagine a poker table. if everyone's collaborating, then the
>> >>> game is rigged. same with tor. you need at least 1 hop to be honest
>> >>> for it to work. with mixing you need at least 1 other to be honest.
>> >>> this is the basis for byzantine fault tolerance working (see the paper
>> >>> about NFS).
>> >>>
>> >>> On 31/10/13 12:45, Tristan Winters wrote:
>> >>> > Yeah, I am hoping to do the same thing with our Australian
>> >>> > Foundation. We may be far away, but we?ve got a kick-arse team.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The more projects like this the better.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I am pretty certain that Coin Punk funding is coming straight from
>> >>> > the foundation. Bitcoin magazine ran an article about Coin Punk
>> >>> > getting a grant from them.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Anyway, did you get my email about the trustless mixer ??? I?m in a
>> >>> > debate with a guy about it and I?d appreciate your feedback.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Cheers,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > TW.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On 31 Oct 2013, at 12:37 pm, Amir Taaki <genjix@???
>> >>> > <mailto:genjix@riseup.net>> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > his email: Kyle Drake <kyledrake@???
>> >>> > <mailto:kyledrake@gmail.com>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I think we can provide people a credible alternative to help good
>> >>> > projects we want to see thrive.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On 31/10/13 12:34, Tristan Winters wrote:
>> >>> >>>> Cool Video.
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> But isn?t the "Coin Punk? wallet financed by the US
>> >>> >>>> Foundation?
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> TW.
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> On 31 Oct 2013, at 9:05 am, Cody R Wilson
>> >>> >>>> <codywilson@??? <mailto:codywilson@utexas.edu>
>> >>> >>>> <mailto:codywilson@utexas.edu>> wrote:
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>> Trick or Treat, Western Civilization:
>> >>> >>>>> http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bitcoin-dark-wallet/x/5141070
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> Render your contempt visible, your resistance invisible.
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>> /While hitherto all valuations and ideals have been built
>> >>> >>>>> on ignorance of Bitcoin or in contradiction to it-
>> >>> >>>>> therefore long live Bitcoin!/
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:17 AM, jindq1 <jindq1@???
>> >>> >>>>> <mailto:jindq1@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>> Email is inefficient for much more than general updates.
>> >>> >>>>> That's the gist of it.
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Amir Taaki
>> >>> >>>>> <genjix@??? <mailto:genjix@riseup.net>> wrote:
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>> but we are all here now with a collective voice, creating
>> >>> >>>> projects, making a name and creative a voice for everyone.
>> >>> >>>> what is openbitco.in <http://openbitco.in/> offering better?
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> On 31/10/13 04:50, jindq1 wrote:
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>> While I may not always feel like the people on this list
>> >>> >>>> match my
>> >>> >>>>> own personal opinions on economics, politics and
>> >>> >>>>> technology, I'm here because I crave difference (it's how
>> >>> >>>>> you learn about
>> >>> >>>> yourself
>> >>> >>>>> and the world afterall). That's why even if I hear a
>> >>> >>>>> million
>> >>> >>>> things
>> >>> >>>>> I don't agree with, I won't ignore it, I'll either argue
>> >>> >>>> with it or
>> >>> >>>>> accept it. This has prompted me to take my own interests
>> >>> >>>>> in learning, being productive and useful, and my disgust
>> >>> >>>>> for corruption and hypocrisy and propose a new
>> >>> >>>>> decentralized organization that puts the voice of people
>> >>> >>>>> back into their own hands, and not a highly moderated forum
>> >>> >>>>> or rich dude's.
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>> * Original openbitco.in <http://openbitco.in/>
>> >>> >>>> <http://openbitco.in <http://openbitco.in/>> proposal:
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E-hLRcG0pejC4h02BCN_fdXJH3j9AAHziYZHivcmDbU/edit?usp=sharing
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> * Current development site: http://openbitco.in
>> >>> >>>> <http://openbitco.in/>
>> >>> >>>>> * Other site features under construction and
>> >>> >>>>> consideration:
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ajtx05YrHtIydGZFNzBZVTEtaldZXzNjUXRCZFc1RHc#gid=0
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> * Decentralized openbitco.in <http://openbitco.in/>
>> >>> >>>> <http://openbitco.in <http://openbitco.in/>> forum proposal:
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E-hLRcG0pejC4h02BCN_fdXJH3j9AAHziYZHivcmDbU/edit?usp=sharing
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> * For more information or if you'd like to participate with the
>> >>> >>>> other
>> >>> >>>>> 30 members involved at the moment, PM me for the skype
>> >>> >>>>> chatroom.
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>> I'd love your guys' opinion on it, even if it's "that will
>> >>> >>>>> never work", because it would only be more fun for me when
>> >>> >>>>> it does. :)
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>> Hope everyone had fun at the Amsterdam conference we did
>> >>> >>>>> last month, we're working on the next 2 and I can't wait to
>> >>> >>>>> start the marketplaces up as OpenBitco.in!
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>> Matthew
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM
>> >>> >>>>> mailing list: http://unsystem.net <http://unsystem.net/>
>> >>> >>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
>> >>> >>>>> list: http://unsystem.net <http://unsystem.net/>
>> >>> >>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
>> >>> >>>>> list: http://unsystem.net <http://unsystem.net/>
>> >>> >>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> - -- Sincerely,
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>> Cody R. Wilson codywilson@???
>> >>> >>>>> <mailto:codywilson@utexas.edu>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>> The University of Texas School of Law Class of 2014
>> >>>
>> >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM
>> >>> >>>>> mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> >>> >>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
>> >>> >>>> list: http://unsystem.net
>> >>> >>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
>> >>> >> list: http://unsystem.net
>> >>> >> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
>> >>> > list: http://unsystem.net
>> >>> > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> - --
>> >>> Abolish the NSA
>> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> >>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> >> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Miller
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>
>