"decentralised" sounds good.. "trust-less" doesn't, better adjective??

[twingall1]

[need some Mad Men in this space]

[franky1]

big corp dont like decentralised, many average joes dont like 'trustless' (because they cant understand it) and many average joes think crypto is about crypts you find at a cemetary(tombs)

so it seems with core being the monarchs(centralising) of bitcoins network and pushing bitcoin into LN(permissioned & requires trust)... the new buzzword they are beginning to push out is
"DLT - distributed ledger technology"

[hatshepsut93]

I actually like the word "trustless" because it precisely describes the main goal of Bitcoin - to eliminate the need for third parties that need to be trusted in order to make transactions. The word "decentralized" is more mainstream and sadly most people don't understand it well, so now it turned into buzzword every time "blockchain technology" is being brought up. If you want more adjectives, you can use "open", "permissionless", "public", "peer-to-peer" - these words are often used for explaining the core values of Bitcoin.

[DooMAD]

Perhaps we are using that word in a way that wasn't intended.  The dictionary definition of trustless equates to "untrustworthy", whereas we use it to mean "doesn't require trust".  If we're going to do better, it may well involve inventing a brand new word.  Not exactly easy.

If we perhaps used a prefix like ab-, or "away", to denote how it's separate from trust.  Does anyone like the sound of "abtrust"?
The ex- prefix tends to denote "out of", "apart from" or "without", so maybe extrust could be a candidate?  Although ex- often carries a negative connotation, so probably not much better than trustless.
Or to go "around" trust would be to "circumtrust", but that doesn't really seem to fit our implied meaning.

Then you add the -ful suffix to make it an adjective.  Abtrustful, Extrustful, Circumtrustful.  Only problem is, such is the nature of language, they're all just gibberish unless people start using them.  

It's probably far easier just to use our new definition of trustless.  We'll wait for the dictionary to catch up.  If we can redefine money itself, changing a word should be simple enough.

[pitiflin]

Then you add the -ful suffix to make it an adjective.  Abtrustful, Extrustful, Circumtrustful.  Only problem is, such is the nature of language, they're all just gibberish unless people start using them.  

OH God! This is blatant murder of English language 
Hodl also didn't make much sense but people started using it and they have now started to base their entire life on it.
Like you said, trustless and it's adjectives, synonyms etc : http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/trustless
Trustless is better to be honest because people believe in what they have to. Let things be how they are.

[odolvlobo]

I agree that "trustless" seem too much like "untrustworthy". I suggest perhaps verifiable or risk-free.

[franky1]

inventing new words is what teenagers love. but thats just buzzwords that does not help average joe
EG. since when did "peng" become more important to say than "cute"... (teenagers think peng is better)

many average joes do not understand terms like HODL and start to think its not just learning about using new currency, but then having to also learn a new language.

to make things useful for average joe, we should not cause them to need to learn very much, if anything. we need to make it as simple to understand as possible

this first starts by not overhyping the utopian dream using buzzwords. but to downplay or stick to reality.
since 2014 the community has moved away from the trustless ethics of bitcoins coded consensus mechanism and instead moved to trust the core team to make decisions on the future(the roadmap). so trying to harp on that the system is trustless is becoming meaningless.

after all it used to be a rule of 32mb then 1mb then 4mb weight.. the community had no say in it. the devs did
after all it used to be a rule of 2.1quadrillian units of measure basketed into allotments of 21million.. but with LN there will be 2.1quintillion units of measure

so over hyping that the system is fixed and requires no trust, because things wont change. is overhype and not the truth.
things do change. and we are no longer using bitcoins consensus. but instead cores backdoor(softforks) for them to decide new features.

thats why smart people dont even use the term decentralised anymore. because that died out. now the term is distributed.

so before even trying to create new buzzwords. first the community need to learn the reality of what they are presenting to then explain it factually, without any overhyped utopian dreams

if this was 4 years ago i would have said "self control" "community consensus" and suggested many other terms that have existed for years.
i would still though even then not suggest inventing new words that requires an urban dictionary to be updated every couple months and getting people to have to use such dictionary all the time

[hahay]

Yes decentralization is very good in my opinion, so an organization or anything like its decentralized cryptocurrency will stand alone and independently without any government intervention from any country.

[merchantofzeny]

"Trustless" does have the connotation of "unfaithful" and might not sound good for many people. "Redistributed" is synonymous to "decentralized" though that would probably do more harm than good since it would sound like it's some commie project. "Irreversible" might be somehow fitting but might also scare people.

"Unfalsifiable" don't roll of the tongue nicely but is the best I can think of without having to invent new words. From there you can slowly explain that it's just that because the record is kept by everyone, then proceed to introduce the term "blockchain" and so on...

[filharvey]

Decentralized means that it is not controlled by any governments or any financial authority.So there is no need for a decentralized currency to be trustless.Both does not have any links.

[Xavofat]

this first starts by not overhyping the utopian dream using buzzwords. but to downplay or stick to reality.

I agree that new words shouldn't be invented, but using a word differently to the definition it has in the dictionary seems even worse.  Instead of saying "here is what the word means", you're saying "here is what the word means, but only in this context".

I would agree with odolvlobo's suggestions, and we could also just phrase it differently by saying something like "the system doesn't require trust in a third party".  Any choice which makes more sense to someone who's never read about it before.

If we can redefine money itself, changing a word should be simple enough.

If the goal of crypto users is to "redefine money itself", then they need to define it well, otherwise it doesn't seem very cohesive.

[twingall1]

Just reading this Op-Ed on bitcoin news (https://news.bitcoin.com/wendy-mcelroy-on-decentralization-give-power-back-to-the-individual/)

And liked this phrasing:

"The “non-trust-based system” that Satoshi described has obvious advantages."

..albeit a bit of a mouthful

[The_prodigy]

[need some Mad Men in this space]

Well, if we define the world of the decentralize is trully hood but if we observe it carefully the meaning is trust less. But each of us have an different perspective in our life in terms of bitcoin because each of has isn't same thinking being decentralize is good for others because no one can manipulate. But for others it is not good because we don't know the true identity