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.
This statement is a little wonky. "Proving that they will never violate trust" is an absolute: it's white, 1, one bit. Levels of trustworthiness are probabilities that the person will not violate the trust.
I can consider someone to be very trustworthy, but there is nothing they can do to prove that they are absolutely trustworthy and will not scam you in the future. Nothing wonky there, just a simple fact.
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.
It means that the chance of scam is higher. The fact that many other people have scammed and gotten away with it increases the risk here. I never said that everyone is going to scam, nor did I claim with 100% certainty that dooglus is going to scam.
Bitcoin definitely provides an opportunity to scam, there is no denying that. When investing, we just have to agree on a way to minimize that temptation and determine who is most likely to resist that temptation. If I have doubts about their ability to resist that temptation, I stay away from them.
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.
That's a rather silly statement. You say it like you're contradicting me or giving a reason to avoid my offer, but you haven't actually put forth a logical objection. I'm offering you a chance to make more money, by way of a hedge that has, from your estimated probabilities, a positive expected value.
I stand by my above statement, that there is money to be made, until you can offer an actual opposing argument rather than a pattern-matched statement pretending to be an argument.
There is money to be made in selling salt. There is also money to be made in selling pepper. This latter fact does not contradict the first statement, and it does not mean that pepper vendors should not sell salt.
Yes, there is more than one way to make money, but if what I'm doing now works, why bother? Thanks, but if I want to make/risk more money, all I need to do is invest more.