> For everyone who doesn't do it on their own, they either have to trust the originator or trust someone who has done it, so for most users you aren't eliminating the need for a trusted third party.
Which is a different trust model.
There are a few major things:
1. Not everyone has to trust the originator
2. It's possible for me to trust a third party which is different from the one asking for my money
3. It's possible for me to trust a combination of many third parties, given that any one reliable third party that cries foul would be enough
So there's a huge difference between "trust me and give me your money" and "trust that not all the third parties that checked the code are co-conspirators".
> That was the upthread claim.
Yes, but I'm not making that claim, and I think your statement saying this piece is "useless in isolation" is overly dismissive.
Which is a different trust model.
There are a few major things:
1. Not everyone has to trust the originator
2. It's possible for me to trust a third party which is different from the one asking for my money
3. It's possible for me to trust a combination of many third parties, given that any one reliable third party that cries foul would be enough
So there's a huge difference between "trust me and give me your money" and "trust that not all the third parties that checked the code are co-conspirators".
> That was the upthread claim.
Yes, but I'm not making that claim, and I think your statement saying this piece is "useless in isolation" is overly dismissive.