📋 [Analysis] Mine the gap: Bitcoin and the maintenance of trustlessness - Gili Vidan and Vili Lehdonvirta

In this piece, Harvard's Gili Vidan and Oxford's Vili Lehdonvirta explore trust maintenance in Bitcoin's ($BTC) decentralized system. "Trust in code" is a popular rally cry for Bitcoiners and fans of decentralized systems. Yet, no software is perfect. Moments of crisis have brought power players to the forefront. By analyzing three breakdowns--2014's Mt Gox, 2015's block size battle, and 2014's GHash.IO 51% mining pool--Vidan and Lehdonvirta come to four popular arguments that maintain trust in Bitcoin's imperfect code. First, Nakamoto's one-CPU-one-vote protocol. The ambiguity of this statement in context of pro-bitcoin arguments "portray(s) (Bitcoin) as a self-regulating system not susceptible to human foibles." Next, an appeal to market actors as rational and self-interested. This was largely seen during GHash.IO's rise to 51% of the mining pool. Gavin Andresen argued that it was against the mining companies interest to attack the network. Regardless of the validity of his point, this argument leads to notions of "techno-utopianism." Thirdly, an appeal to technical expertise. An appeal to technical knowledge is often touted over others, leading to conformity and consensus in the Bitcoin community. Lastly, blaming crises on temporary bugs. Vidan and Lehdonvirta amount this argument to an appeal to authority: Nakamoto's vision wherein the perfect code is almost within reach. To conclude, Vidan and Lehdonvirta are critical of techno-utopianism and push for the creation of fair political institutions for decentralized decision making.