Ultimately you need to trust the blockchain, which runs on computers. Which is the commenter's point.

Even with cash, you trust that the banks won't blacklist your serial numbers. With gold you trust that the world will not invent a new gold making method that will make it worthless (as happened with aluminum). A basic level of faith is required by any system, so that point is not valid.

The blockchain is a virtualized state - yes it executes on computers but the whole point is distributed consensus - you don't have to trust the computers, you trust the open source code being executed by the network.

> you don't have to trust the computers, you trust the open source code being executed by the network

You're contradicting yourself.

It's not a contradiction.

You can trust the law / trust the code, but not trust the judges / trust the machines that run the code.

You trust the law beacuse you can read it / You trust the code because you can read and mathematically prove that it works

You cant trust the judges -- you have to have faith in them

You cant trust the machines either -- but blockchain gives you specific mathematical guarantees that it is very hard for them to break the system.

I don't think you're using the word 'trust' correctly. Trust is a belief that a particular outcome will occur despite having no guarantees that it will occur. What does it mean to trust the law? I have no idea.

I think you are quibbling over the word "trust". How about you believe, based on your understanding of the system and the monetary cost of attacking it, that the virtualized computer will execute the way you expect it to execute?

The same way you'd "trust" that a safe deposit box will not be breached. It's certainly not impossible, but it's unlikely based on your understanding of how it works.

Yes, I have no objection to this usage of 'trust'. My objection is in 'trust the law'.