Bitcoin Forum

Trust is a very big thing within the crypto and web3 ecosystem, I dare say the biggest part of the ecosystem. Crypto users rely on trust, trust in bridges, rollups or even dApps, and this can be very risky sometimes if we're being honest.

Like with my last post, I have a theory and while this might sound cliche, I think a solution would just be making ZK proofs easy fast and cheap for any project to use.

Now I'm not saying this is a new idea, I'm sure there are people or teams out there already doing something like this, or even projects out there already offering something similar, I remember reading about PROVE and I know they offer something similar, but I'm not sure how many people use this, or if it's even wildly used at the moment, so take this post with a pinch of salt.

The best way to improve trust is to be existent for a long time. This is now all about the trust that you're asking when many investors are looking for quick profits and the same goes with the developers. Everyone want is quick money but the genuine ones that want to help improve the trust on this space should be existent for a long time. Not that long but maybe a year or more would be sufficient to gain the trust of many. Because with rampant rug pulls, scams and fake contribution to the market, we'd see many of these projects are ingenuine. And so, that's what I think should be one to consider and if they gain the momentum, they should maintain it.

They should start proving to us that they are truly decentralized and not centralized. Almost all web3 (100%) that I have seen before are centralized in one way or the other. They said web3 will be decentralized but they are completely centralized. Web3 is completely centralized than what some people are thinking and which is very bad. We do not have true Web3 yet.

I suspect even with total decentralisation trust is still very important.

Because pure decentralisation tends toward "do not trust, just verify", in other words adversarial, or ultimately "trust that everyone involved is out to screw you so screw them first if in any way possible".

This reminds me of a scenario I imagined as almost a child, though after coming to Canada since the scenario was based on two coasts far apart thus might not have occurred to me had I stayed back in England...

I wondered a lot, more as more years went by, why I did not seem able to see this scenario actually happening around me since it seemed such an obvious thing for anyone long-term to do...

The idea is, from whichever coast has higher unemployment, why not buy up land to build factory and housing for factory workers, attract the workers to that coast to sell them housing seeming cheap, with accompanying jobs, drawing workers from the other coast, thinning out the other coast so it gets less expensive there to get the land for factories and worker-housing, then close your factories on the first coast to attract the workers to the other, buying up their housing at a discount, and then just keep migrating them back and forth back and forth buying back at a discount all that housing each time you economic-pressure them to move back to the other coast again?

Under a purely adversarial system of whatever works to generate profits, wouldn't nasty strategies like that make long term sense?

So it seems to me that eventually it is likely to become noticable that maybe a purely adversarial lets all scam everyone any way we can setup might start to not look so good afterall compared to genuinely trying to actually be a win-win for everyone even long term, if such a thing is possible.

For crypto I have tended to lean toward an idea that to a very large extent it is not the technical capability or even capacity of a currency that is the best part of value but rather the degree to which the typical or modal players playing that currency are truly working together to to build value and store value.

I think some accounts of bimetallic currency systems provide a glimpse into this kind of potential manipulation, varying the relative values of e.g. gold and silver, or maybe in crypto equivalent might be bitcoin and some other big one, back and forth back and forth deliberately to create volatility, which traders thrive on...

To my mind a large part of why bitcoin remains attractive and valuable is its build and retain value culture; if that changes over time so it becomes just another "trust that everyone is out to extract value from you while ideally not enabling you to extract any" setup to me bitcoin will lose its lustre regardless of how much its hashpower continues to remain unrivaled...


-MarkM-

Sometime I really wonder how expensive ZK proof is.

I've seen many project about ZK proof right now, so many of them requires huge GPU running like 5090 and above.
My concern is how much energy consumed to prove a billion cycle and so on, so we can judge the effectiveness. I also want to see whether it will be sustaining.

Trust is build a d earned and not demanded at instant, web3 have been around for some time now, and both the activities and incidents that have happened with this period of time have Changed a lot of things and investors are either regretting to have invested in web3 projects since majority have failed to meet up with their community demands and existing ecosystem that support the project to thrive in the market, so the only way to gain that trust is by existing and growing for a while without any possible break down, that way the community will build trust to hold their assets for a lot ng period of time and supporting the platforms also.

True, trust is very important, not just the crypto space but in life in general, friendships, etc. I've read about SUCCINT too, though maybe now it's getting attention after tge and availability on Bitget Candybomb and cos they tend to solve scalability and trust issues with a modular, easy-to-use system that works across chains, rollups, and dApps.

Trust is everything, not just on the internet & Web3. If a project has it, then it is certain that the project will run like Bitcoin (BTC), Litecoin (LTC) & Monero (XMR). If you're referring to trust technically through on-chain interactions, I don't think I'm the right person to discuss this, as I don't really understand the technical stuff.

But if it's for non-technical, the best way to build trust is to maintain a project that's viable over the long term. Not one built solely on hype, like the meme tokens we see created daily in this industry.

PROVE is the token used to run ZK on the Succinct Prover Network. They use SP1 HyperCube and launched their journey on August 5th. They claim to have proven 93% of Ethereum blocks in under 12 seconds.

You can learn more here: https://blog.succinct.xyz/sp1-hypercube/

This is not good, you fail to see the starting error in Web3. If the ecosystem needs solutions to problems that it has created itself, the problem lies in the ecosystem. Too many projects, too many layers, too many bridges. None of this should exist. Build on scalable L1s, and you can minimize the trust needed.

They are running out of buzzwords to scam, so they keep adding things that have no place here.

The best way to improve trust in web3 is through clear communication, transparency & real use cases. Projects should openly share how they work, keep code open source & get regular audits. Easy to use platforms & strong community support also help people feel safe. When users see real benefits & know risks are managed they’ll trust web3 more.

You are right and I totally agree with you. In a system where everything is centralised you will see that trust won't be there because we are dealing with humans. No matter how they preach it to make the people trust the system, 100% trust won't be there because there are human elements that are still there. Look at bitcoin that's completely decentralised, you will see that everything is running smoothly. But if it was centralised by now we might have heard different stories. If web3 wants to experience total trust and much growth, it should be totally decentralised.

Web3 was a marketing scam, and even though it was quite obvious many fell for it and it has worked. Web3 has failed and not delivered anything. Still, you guys need to remember that decentralized does not automatically mean better than centralized. The topic is quite complex and it depends on the details which is better under what scenario.