This year, I have revisited Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin white paper many times. The key point is the term mentioned 14 times, called "Trust-minimization." Simply put, this term is the goal of the Bitcoin system. A simple understanding is that "Trusted third parties" are a security black hole. Nakamoto tried as much as possible to let an emergent decentralized system replace our past centralized accounting system full of security black holes. Essentially, Trust-Minimization means minimizing the role of third-party "trusted" entities.
When we understand the theoretical system of decentralization, we might fall into different meanings in different linguistic contexts. There are clearly different meanings in the cultural attributes, governance mechanisms, economics, and technology layers. Regardless of the specific or vague meaning of any layer, the key goal is Trust-Minimization, or trust minimization.
Let's distinguish two terms: Trustless and Trust-Minimization. Szabo once wrote that the reason why the blockchain isn't trustless is because we inevitably rely on nodes, developers, miners, and other participants to form this decentralized system. In simple terms, it's not about blindly saying that we don't need a trusted third party, but under certain conditions, such as security and decentralization mechanisms, we aim for a trust-minimization objective. Conversely, we might focus on whether, under these constraints, the system meets our requirements for resilience against attacks, collusion, and censorship. Trust minimization is, therefore, an overall design principle based on certain security foundations.
Of course, our discussion today isn't just about technical systems. We can hypothesize that if decentralization serves as a theoretical framework guiding future scientific research and technical systems, then trust minimization could be said to be the fundamental principle or theoretical core of this framework.
Today, we can briefly discuss what the principle of trust minimization truly is from five dimensions: theoretical framework, technical system, economic entity, governance system, and community culture.
Starting with the theoretical framework, trust minimization is obviously the core principle of the decentralization theory. Due to the complexity, multi-layered nature, and developmental aspect of the decentralization theory, we need a converging objective when discussing it. This goal is not merely qualitative, but often quantitative. Whether it emerges from cryptography, distributed technology, economics, system theory, or legal theory, we have a comprehensive criterion, which is trust minimization. Theories opposing this criterion are often contrary to decentralization. No matter how complex a theory or concept is, if it opposes the principle of trust minimization, it often faces many challenges in consensus formation. The essence of the decentralization theoretical system is an interdisciplinary complex theoretical system, but because of the appearance of the trust minimization principle, we have a criterion to judge and choose a theoretical system. For example, the concept of the metaverse, which we often hear about, does not appear to have the principle of trust minimization in its so-called theoretical system. In fact, concepts like the metaverse arose mainly due to strong trust transfer from third parties like Facebook. We should remain cautious about such concepts and theoretical systems.
Furthermore, when discussing DID and Desoul, in some ways, past identity cases, such as the eye ID project by YC's Sam, and many decentralized identity projects, actually rely on some new theoretical systems. Truly following the principle of trust minimization, it seems Desoul's proposition is more prominent. Most of the past were merely transfers of trust from third parties. Clearly, we need more consensual concepts and theoretical systems to construct our "identity" (though "identity" might not be the right word; I'd rather call it "state").
Simply put, whether it's crypto or a decentralized society, the theoretical system we rely on in the future is relatively complete in terms of decentralization, and trust minimization is the core principle within it. That means, if something aligns with this criterion, we should be bold and proactive; if it runs contrary, we should be cautious.
Next is the technical system, where trust minimization becomes an essential goal. That is, during system design, development, and iteration, we must holistically consider trust minimization. Simply put, under certain constraints, we should try not to depend on one or a few major trusted third parties, and achieve multidimensional resilience against attacks, such as Bitcoin's defense against Sybil attacks, hash power attacks, and reverse computing attacks on one-way encryption functions. Similarly, during system iteration, whether the system completely relies on a single foundation or developer, and how it balances with fork-ability, are important considerations.
From an economic perspective, trust minimization becomes clearer. It has some similarity with the concept of disintermediation. In an economic entity, whether the balance of supply and demand needs to be achieved through a strong currency organization, bank, or centralized exchange is crucial. Evaluating various Layer1 ecosystems, Ethereum's ecosystem seems economically healthier compared to many others that rely on strong centralized trust. The value of decentralized financial protocols lies in breaking many of the security black holes of traditional financial systems, though today's decentralized finance still has many security issues. Clearly, trust minimization isn't just about eliminating
To put it simply, the trust minimization in our economy means the reduction of strong intermediaries, collusion, and bubbles. It is clear that there are many bottom-up technological approaches available today, such as Tokens and NFTs, that can help achieve this goal.
From a governance perspective, "trust minimization" is somewhat analogous to the Chinese saying "不折腾" (not making unnecessary troubles). This phrase vividly illustrates the meaning of the term at this level. When analyzing Bitcoin, Ethereum, and the governance of traditional national economies and companies, most organizations don't necessarily follow the design principle of trust minimization. Even the iconic Vitalik Foundation has its shortcomings in governance. The DAO fork in the past has caused Ethereum's governance legitimacy to be constantly questioned. When governance deviates from the principle of trust minimization, organizations often pay a high price. This is why people are still debating this issue. Of course, today's exploration of decentralized governance is just beginning. Whether it's token-based governance, non-token governance, federal governance, or parliamentary representation, all these mechanisms are still in the exploration phase. This exploration underscores the importance of the principle of trust minimization - the design principle of governance mechanisms is to avoid unnecessary troubles.
Our governance mechanisms need to combine top-down centralization and bottom-up self-organization. For instance, in the governance of DAOs, while we may not have a perfect mechanism, we would have some simple and stable rules. What constitutes our DAO's constitution? What are our DAO's judgment and selection mechanisms? What can we change and what can't we? What can the governance layer decide, and what can the entire community decide?
Indeed, with the emergence of the narrative structure of Desoiety, the refinement of DAO tools and infrastructure, and the advent of NFTs, DAO organizations are no longer purely following physical designs. Instead of just "money" as the price for establishing governance consensus, we have more developmental possibilities. We might be entering a governance paradigm shift driven by decentralized theories and technical systems. This reform is human-centered, not asset-centered.
Speaking of community cultural attributes, what is trust minimization at this level? We are in the early stages of a very open exploration. Our cultural identity in the community comes from three questions: Who am I? Who are we? And what is the relationship between me and us?
Recently, Vitalik adopting a Chinese name is interesting. He's been reading the Tao Te Ching, exploring a new cultural layer, breaking traditional identity based on centralized East-West languages and nationalities. In essence, trust minimization means minimizing the centralized "names" used as standards for value judgment and selection.
Simply put, who am I? I'm no longer the name my parents gave me in Chinese, the name on my ID card, or my English name on the internet. All these are just codes, transmitted through centralized trust. By breaking away from this centralized code, I might better explore who I really am. Bitcoin's emergence allows me, at least economically, to become an independent entity. Today, who I am is not my passport name and code but an independent owner of a certain address and assets.
And who are we? This encompasses the collective aspects of ethics, nationality, family, morality, and so on. With the advent of NFTs, we see a multitude of cultural groups, such as Azuki, Punk, and BAYC. Owning different NFTs connects us differently. While this diversity and openness are great, we also see increasing cultural conflicts between groups. Who are we? We're just groups with computable consensus. In simple terms, the community we contribute the most to probably defines us the most.
Certainly, what is the relationship between me and "us"? This question is very interesting. In the language of Crypto, I am a multi-level, multi-role part of "us", and "us" is just a collection of "me" with a particular consensus. For instance, I belong to the Bitcoin community and the Ethereum community, but I am not part of the Polkadot community. Similarly, I am part of the Punk community, but I am not part of the Monkey community. I am an individual in a decentralized community. Born in China and educated in the United States, I can speak both Chinese and English. Naturally, I belong to the Chinese-speaking community and, to some extent, the English-speaking community. The term "us" usually refers to different contexts: our Chinese-speaking community, our Bitcoin community, our decentralized community, our Punk community. Evidently, from a materialistic perspective, the relationship between "me" and "us" is similar to a specific contract-defined subordination and association, which is practical and calculable. However, spiritually, after the emergence of Satoshi Nakamoto, the relationship between "me" and "us" has taken on a more diversified and profound cultural meaning, reflecting elements such as the monetization of worship and modern Zen.
Thus, minimizing trust is essentially the integration of centralized trust in cultural identity. For instance, when referring to names, compared to Chinese and English names, we clearly prefer numbers; the name "0x" is a good example, representing a decentralized cultural group. Whereas "Azuki" obviously reflects Asian culture. While language itself is decentralized, Chinese and English names deeply carry the imprints of Eastern and Western cultures. There is a certain corrective culture in the current Web3. Especially when Jack Dorsey opposes the capital-oriented Web3. If capital conspiracy becomes the mainstream culture, the outcomes of Web3 and Web2 may not differ much; organizations and developers might just get empowered under the guise of decentralization.
Clearly, we are in the early stages of a decentralized society. We hope for a more egalitarian, free, cohesive, and diverse culture, even though these terms are inherently contradictory. Fortunately, we are currently exploring two decentralized narratives: materialistic and humanistic. In a broader historical context, where our human and spiritual cultures anchor is the deeper theme. Will we achieve cross-era and cross-regional equality? More spiritual freedom? More cohesive community consensus? And a more inclusive and diverse array of thoughts? Minimizing trust, especially in building consensus in language and attitude, is a crucial balance of subjective humanistic concern and objective rational criteria.
Simply put, can we understand "minimizing trust" as "not being attached", a concept from Buddhism? This means not to be ensnared or use apparent representations, conceptual representations, name representations, or identity representations, but rather to focus more on the actual substance beneath and the true connections. Our consensus has degrees; our choices need validation. Today's discussion on minimizing trust in the community culture is just the beginning.
Lastly, one can imagine minimizing trust as a tightly wrapped walnut; only by slowly peeling off its seemingly hard shell can we see its true heart, which is the real goal.
Perhaps since Steve Jobs, his enlightenment from modern Zen has subtly influenced us.
Or maybe it was Satoshi Nakamoto, the name behind the Bitcoin whitepaper, that drew attention.
Or possibly, the creators of the "Bored Ape Yacht Club" cleverly emphasized the theme of "Bored" in this new era.
"Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form."
I dedicate these lines from the Heart Sutra to the realists of the new world.