How does 'trustlessness' in Bitcoin culture affect social relationships?

Hello, talking about this topic, I feel like we're discussing how the internet would change our lives back when it first emerged. The term "trustless" sounds a bit cold, even antisocial, as if it means "let's not trust anyone." But in the world of Bitcoin, its meaning is quite the opposite, or rather, it's a deeper concept.

Simply put, "trustlessness" doesn't mean you don't trust anyone; it means you "don't need" to trust a specific person or institution.

Let me give you an example to make it clear:

Imagine you want to buy something online from a complete stranger. How would you dare to send them money first? You'd fear they'd take the money and not ship the goods. How would they dare to ship the goods first? They'd fear you'd receive them and not pay.

What do you do then? We introduce an intermediary, a platform like Alipay or Taobao. You give the money to the platform, the platform notifies the seller to ship, you confirm receipt of the goods, and then the platform releases the money to the seller. In this process, you and the seller don't actually need to trust each other; both of you trust the "intermediary platform."

This is the model for most of our current social relationships: based on trust in intermediaries. We trust banks, governments, companies, platforms...

Bitcoin's "trustlessness" aims to remove this "intermediary."

It uses a set of open, transparent, and immutable mathematical rules (i.e., blockchain technology) to act as this "intermediary." These rules are like a publicly broadcast ledger for the entire network: who transferred how much money to whom is recorded and cannot be altered, and everyone can see it (though anonymously).

So, when you transact with that stranger, you no longer need Alipay. You directly send them Bitcoin, and this action is recorded on that global ledger, with computers worldwide "witnessing" it for you. This process is guaranteed by mathematics and code, not by the reputation of a particular company.

So, how exactly does this thing affect our social relationships?

It's like a double-edged sword.

On the positive side: it greatly expands the possibilities and efficiency of cooperation.

1. Truly Global Cooperation: Previously, if you wanted to collaborate on a project with someone you'd never met in Africa, managing funds and contract guarantees was very complicated. But with a "trustless" system, you can write cooperation rules into a smart contract (an automatically executing program), and as long as the conditions are met, funds are automatically distributed. You don't need to know the other party's background, reputation, or even who they are; you just need to trust that the code will execute fairly. This makes "neighbors across the globe" cooperation possible.

2. Reduced Trust Costs, Increased Fairness: In traditional relationships, building trust requires time, money, and even networks. But in a "trustless" system, the rules are the same for everyone. Whether you're a CEO of a large company or an ordinary student, everyone is equal before the code. It diminishes the power of "intermediaries" who profit from information asymmetry or privileged positions.

But on the other hand, it might also make social relationships colder and more fragile.

1. The Coldness of "Code is Law": This system is purely rational; it lacks "human touch" or "empathy." For example, if you accidentally send Bitcoin to the wrong address, it's truly unrecoverable. There's no customer service number to call, no bank manager to help you retrieve it. The "leniency" or "extenuating circumstances" found in traditional social relationships don't exist here. Everything is based solely on rules; a mistake is a mistake, and you bear the consequences. This "coldness" places immense responsibility on each individual.

2. Atomization of Personal Relationships: As we increasingly rely on automated, trustless systems for value exchange, the need to build "real human trust" among ourselves might decrease. For instance, in the past, doing business involved dining and chatting with partners, building long-term relationships and reputation. Now, it might just be a one-off, cold transaction completed through code. This type of relationship is highly efficient but also very "thin," lacking the warm and resilient bonds between people.

In summary:

The "trustlessness" in Bitcoin culture essentially shifts our trust from "people or institutions" to "mathematics and rules."

It acts as a catalyst, on one hand allowing our social cooperation to transcend identity, geography, and cultural divides, becoming more efficient, fairer, and broader; but on the other hand, it might also make our relationships more procedural, more individualistic, and weaken the "human-centric" trust model found in traditional society.

It's not about destroying trust, but rather offering a new way to establish trust that doesn't rely on any central authority. Where this will ultimately lead our society, much like how we couldn't imagine TikTok or food delivery 20 years ago, only time will tell.