[proxynoproxy]

And just to think of the energy that you wasted arguing this tired point! It’s about trust.

You don’t see it has value because you trust in authority. For those that don’t trust in authority, they need a proof of work to prove that someone else… did the work. Dont trust, verify.

That no-trust, verify model is valuable to me. It’s a one way valve. Super useful when you can’t trust anyone around you.

Bitcoin is money for enemies. If my enemy and I can transact in an adversarial environment without relying on some subjective truth, this is valuable.

[munksbeer]

> Bitcoin is money for enemies. If my enemy and I can transact in an adversarial environment without relying on some subjective truth, this is valuable.

What are you transacting? Ultimately, you're going to be transacting in a real world "thing", rather than just something on the chain. So you haven't actually solved anything, there is still a layer of trust involved. You still rely on your enemy to either make the transaction after you deliver the "thing", or you rely on your enemy to deliver the "thing" after you make the transaction.

Sure, you can stand there with guns to heads, but then you could just do it in cash, no need for bitcoin.

[mattwilsonn888]

You should appreciate that the trust assumptions in your example have been minimized to a point not before possible for digital transactions; in principle removing all possible third-party interference in remote transactions.

If you're going to argue about failures in practice, I'm not interested, because I agree (likely in a way more open-minded to moving forward than your mindset of giving up).