There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy. Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.
I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient.
I agree that there are levels of trustworthiness and we all have different criteria for deciding who we want to trust, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing someone can do to prove that they will never violate that trust.
What is it about dooglus that causes this concern? I understand there are others in this forum that have scammed in the past, but what does this have to do with him? Was he even associated with any of them?
He's using an anonymous, chargeback free, legal gray-area currency, and we know little more about him than his exceptionally common (purported) real name. He has very strong economic incentives to take the money and run. The fact that others have scammed gives us a lot of information:
- Anonymous people here often favor the economic incentive to scam over the moral / reputational incentive not to
- Post count / duration on board is not a reliable indicator of trust
- A significant portion of the trusted people here have simply been pulling long-cons
(These actually do affect the likelihood that dooglus will scam, because probability.)
- People are usually unable to recover stolen bitcoins.
Bitcoin eliminates the need to trust bankers and their currencies. With bankers out of the loop, we each individually have to decide who we are going to trust when we transact or invest. That's inescapable. Yes, some have scammed, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to scam, just because they have the opportunity to.
I still think theft is the most probable scenario.
Another possibility: What if dooglus accidentally lights every copy of his offline wallet on fire simultaneously? Are investors protected?
There are ways to protect from this, yes.
That does not answer the question at hand: "are investors protected?"
It also completely dodges the intent of the analogy, destroying any hopes I had for a reasonable conversation.
"I'm worried about alien abduction"
"What happens if our log cabin spontaneously combusts while the whole town is inside, will we be ok?"
"Fire extinguishers exist in some countries."
I'm not qualified to answer these questions, because I don't know all of the specific security measures he has in place. I'm less concerned about the integrity of dooglus than I am about the malicious intent of a thief or a government bureacrat. These questions aren't related to that.
I'm leaving the quote tree here so that you can see what you're responding to.
This whole subthread of our conversation is useless.I agree.
I believe having a diversified portfolio is the best way for me to "hedge" my investments and protects me from having something go horribly wrong with one of them.
If we disagree on the probabilities of outcomes, there is always money to be made.
There is also money to be made by investing in projects run by individuals that I consider to be competent and trustworthy. That's been working well for me so far.