Is trust in Bitcoin developers required?

[mczarnek]

The algorithms behind the scenes can be as beautiful as you want them to be BUT ultimately most people using these wallets can't code or read code so they need to trust that the cryptocurrency wallet they download isn't sending their passwords off to the creator of the cryptocurrency.  Certainly open source helps but theoretically the site hosting the wallet could giving out different versions to different people or something.

So what is the point of trustlessness if we are trusting developers?

I don't really agree with that statement myself, but I'd like to spark a discussion about the topic and hear the thoughts of others as well as solutions.

[R2D221]

Ultimately you need to trust someone, since no person is capable of knowing everything. That's how society works. People specialize on different fields, trusting that other people in other fields know what they're doing.

Imagine you have a building. It's open source, in the sense that you have access to all blueprints and all details about the construction process. But you're an accountant, and you don't understand anything about architecture. So, do you trust the architect and all the construction workers that are making the building you will be living in for the next decades?

[Chef Ramsay]

Nope, I have good stuff around here these days. We have plenty of more decent things here for others to get used to. Hello?

[Agestorzrxx]

Yes, image that when you choose a wallet of one company, if you don't trust the company, will you choose their wallet? sure you are not.

[mczarnek]

So sounds like you are saying trust is required.. and while understandable.. why not simply trust them with a central ledger and do away with the blockchain?  I thought point of the blockchain was to minimize trust?

To partially answer my own question, I guess that this allows different people to trust different companies yet still use the same currency between themselves.. that's definitely useful.

[thebenjamincode]

The algorithms behind the scenes can be as beautiful as you want them to be BUT ultimately most people using these wallets can't code or read code so they need to trust that the cryptocurrency wallet they download isn't sending their passwords off to the creator of the cryptocurrency.  Certainly open source helps but theoretically the site hosting the wallet could giving out different versions to different people or something.

So what is the point of trustlessness if we are trusting developers?

I don't really agree with that statement myself, but I'd like to spark a discussion about the topic and hear the thoughts of others as well as solutions.

i believe thats why people are getting hacked because even though bitcoin is hackproof, the websites and exchange are hackable

[bitcreditscc]

So sounds like you are saying trust is required.. and while understandable.. why not simply trust them with a central ledger and do away with the blockchain?  I thought point of the blockchain was to minimize trust?

To partially answer my own question, I guess that this allows different people to trust different companies yet still use the same currency between themselves.. that's definitely useful.

The trust in open source comes from the fact that it is OPEN. So simply , you are not trusting someone, you are trusting a large group of disconnected people. As a result of this disconnect, if something was wrong, it would be pointed out and collusion is almost impossible.

[QuestionAuthority]

The point you can stop placing your trust in the Bitcoin elite is when you stop using Bitcoin or you die. You are always going to need to trust someone whether it be the devs, the mining farm operators or the businesses you send "no charge back" money to. You will be trusting someone if you use Bitcoin. There's no getting around it.

[PenguinFire]

I don't think we need to really trust past devs of the bitcoin chain and all because it is transparent.  We need need to be able to trust bitcoin devs that work with wallets, exchanges, and start new trends or expansions to the current online bitcoin experience.

[Amph]

well everything is open source here you just need to take a look at the code, so there isn't the need to trust someone

i would have prefered if bitcoin was an automated client that could enhance itself everytime, but this is not possibile in the 21 century

[louise123]

Ultimately you need to trust someone, since no person is capable of knowing everything. That's how society works. People specialize on different fields, trusting that other people in other fields know what they're doing.

Imagine you have a building. It's open source, in the sense that you have access to all blueprints and all details about the construction process. But you're an accountant, and you don't understand anything about architecture. So, do you trust the architect and all the construction workers that are making the building you will be living in for the next decades?

That.
It doesn't matter that Bitcoin is an open source project.
The average Joe is not a programmer therefor wouldn't know what to look for even if they saw the code.

[Kprawn]

Not all developers work together.. You have competing developers from other Alt coins, who would gladly expose any backdoor or fulnerability like that, to boost their own coin.

You also have cryptography experts with no interest in Bitcoin, who are hired by countries to secure their networks. If a specific country, say China wants to accept Bitcoin as a payment method, they would outsource to experts in the field, to test it.

These experts have a reputation and a income to protect, so they will make sure, that they give 100% correct information to their employers.

Would you as a Bitcoin Core developer, give anyone ammunition, by creating a backdoor, and risk being exposed and losing your income and reputation?

Does that answer your question? 

[louise123]

Not all developers work together.. You have competing developers from other Alt coins, who would gladly expose any backdoor or fulnerability like that, to boost their own coin.

You also have cryptography experts with no interest in Bitcoin, who are hired by countries to secure their networks. If a specific country, say China wants to accept Bitcoin as a payment method, they would outsource to experts in the field, to test it.

These experts have a reputation and a income to protect, so they will make sure, that they give 100% correct information to their employers.

Would you as a Bitcoin Core developer, give anyone ammunition, by creating a backdoor, and risk being exposed and losing your income and reputation?

Does that answer your question? 

That's just plain stupid.
Why would anyone waste their time trying to find backdoors or vulnerabilities on any other coin instead of using their time more productively by improving their own?

[Kprawn]

Not all developers work together.. You have competing developers from other Alt coins, who would gladly expose any backdoor or fulnerability like that, to boost their own coin.

You also have cryptography experts with no interest in Bitcoin, who are hired by countries to secure their networks. If a specific country, say China wants to accept Bitcoin as a payment method, they would outsource to experts in the field, to test it.

These experts have a reputation and a income to protect, so they will make sure, that they give 100% correct information to their employers.

Would you as a Bitcoin Core developer, give anyone ammunition, by creating a backdoor, and risk being exposed and losing your income and reputation?

Does that answer your question? 

That's just plain stupid.
Why would anyone waste their time trying to find backdoors or vulnerabilities on any other coin instead of using their time more productively by improving their own?

It's acctually very simple...

Bitcoin is sitting comfortably at the top, with no real competition. {Price & Adoption} If you are the competitor, and you can expose such a backdoor, it would drive people away from Bitcoin and possibly towards your currency. {You would obviously use that as ammunition to boost your own coin}

Why is it so difficult to understand that?

The code is not that complex, that it would take a expert weeks to analize it... they most probably evaluated it anyways, when they developed their own coin.   

[virtualx]

The algorithms behind the scenes can be as beautiful as you want them to be BUT ultimately most people using these wallets can't code or read code so they need to trust that the cryptocurrency wallet they download isn't sending their passwords off to the creator of the cryptocurrency.  Certainly open source helps but theoretically the site hosting the wallet could giving out different versions to different people or something.

So what is the point of trustlessness if we are trusting developers?

I don't really agree with that statement myself, but I'd like to spark a discussion about the topic and hear the thoughts of others as well as solutions.

There is not just one group of developers in the bitcoin network. There is the protocol to which different clients (both full nodes and light wallets) connect. You do not have to trust the developers only the network.

[doof]

The algorithms behind the scenes can be as beautiful as you want them to be BUT ultimately most people using these wallets can't code or read code so they need to trust that the cryptocurrency wallet they download isn't sending their passwords off to the creator of the cryptocurrency.  Certainly open source helps but theoretically the site hosting the wallet could giving out different versions to different people or something.

So what is the point of trustlessness if we are trusting developers?

I don't really agree with that statement myself, but I'd like to spark a discussion about the topic and hear the thoughts of others as well as solutions.

To throw your hands up and say "i don't read code" is a cop out IMO.  Like learning any new skill it takes time and effort.  You might not be come a master builder, but you'll learn what looks legit and what doesn't.

[MicroGuy]

So what is the point of trustlessness if we are trusting developers?

Bitcoin has grown in size to the scope that the current core update procedures are antiquated and simply ... dangerous.

I think having some type of voting system in place might be a solution. Make it so only changes receiving 80% of the vote are implemented.

[DarkHyudrA]

So what is the point of trustlessness if we are trusting developers?

Bitcoin had grown in size to the scope that the current core update procedures are antiquated and simply ... dangerous.

I think having some type of voting system in place might be a solution. Make it so only changes receiving 80% of the vote are implemented.

But who would vote?
There a tons of people that know little to nothing that if given the choice to vote could vote on the stupid suggestion/BIP.
All ends in trust, there's no way to avoid that.

[MicroGuy]

But who would vote?

Merchants, exchanges, pools, payment providers ... anything is better than the centralized and totalitarian system currently in place.

[Amph]

So what is the point of trustlessness if we are trusting developers?

Bitcoin had grown in size to the scope that the current core update procedures are antiquated and simply ... dangerous.

I think having some type of voting system in place might be a solution. Make it so only changes receiving 80% of the vote are implemented.

But who would vote?
There a tons of people that know little to nothing that if given the choice to vote could vote on the stupid suggestion/BIP.
All ends in trust, there's no way to avoid that.

a council, a group of people who have a good knowledge of the technical aspetc of bitcoin and blockchain, but then you need to trust those, and thus voting them need another group who should be trusted

we can raise a chain of trusted people, like a "group node" of users