Thread

Preach. nostr:nevent1qqsynqa3dmrlr5azary5dre5afcnf52k6kyeedz883p234gxytyq50qpupmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhj2v3swaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxumm5daeks6fwwa5kute9xgc8wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9ujnyvrhwden5te0wfjkccte9eekjctdwd68ytnrdakj7ffjxpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuvrcvd5xzapwvdhk6te9xgc8wumn8ghj7mnxwfjkccte9eshqup0y5erqamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7tjwvhxumm5daeks6fwwa5kute9xgc8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwv4u8getj0ghxxmmd9ujnyvrhwden5te0vejkuunfwgkhxtnwda6x7umgdyh8w6twqgs937g9lksy25es6h5c502d78shc3f2knq76ey0xu03qqj5g77fcygrqsqqqqqpq0h73y

Governments rob us and send to war, corporations lie and poison us. Hard pass on both.

I think the third option … is a little more involved than simply “no trust required”. Maybe “required” needs to be clarified : 1. Trust in a specific entity is (effectively) required by way of coercive government or business practices. 2. Trust itself is required to navigate relationships, even if “who to trust” might never be coerced. AFAIKT, Webs of Trust tools (or similar tools to establish “trust networks”) will always be “required” as part of the infrastructure that supports “trustlessness”. Trust itself is required to “fill the gaps” where technology cannot reach. But I also know that you think a lot more about this than I do, so my opinion may be naive.

Absolutely, nuance is important.