2030 a new currency will come & the blockchain will be worthless because like social networks people will just move on to the next thing. It will be built by companies masquerading as open source advocates. They will look like they switched sides in 2 years but that's the illusion they never we're on your side. In the end you will build the backdoor for them & you will say this is an upstream issue.
Discussion
Reads a bit as if you're jumping to conclusions there.
A significant share of all people who're interested in Bitcoin almost per default distrust the big companies when they're offering something to the public, pretending it's not for their profit motive and instead for the good of society.
That's just one reason.
Another: a newly created currency won't have the network effect on its side, at least at first. It'll somehow have to overcome it to compete.
Conclusion for me: the Bitcoin devs and miners and full node runners and end users should be very alert about any changes to the protocol, because there are of course always great malevolent forces, solely serving corporate interests, trying to change the system for their benefit. And I think many see the issue and thus are alert.
Can you explain how the trust verification works?
I'm unsure what you mean exactly.
I'll assume you mean the trust from people who are not directly involved with protocol changes (endusers, ..) in those people who propose changes to the protocol/system.
"Trust verification" has always been a messy process, I'd clame, and it will always be. Every individual will form their opinion whether they can trust the system as a whole or a certain element of the system or another individual person (developer, ..) on the basis of a diverse mix of information sources, past experience and intuition. It's just how society works.
The best path IMO would be:
- implement a few (maybe a handful) more simple (!) changes
- then completely stop modifying the system because the greater the complexity grows, the likelier it is that unforeseen instabilities/breakages can result
Complexity is a killer. For a system that's interlinked with human society to remain dynamically stable, it has to be kept below some threshold complexity, because otherwise the share of people who're able to understand it's system dynamics will become too small. If only a small fraction of people understand a system they cannot behave rationally in its context which leads to instability.
I just wanted to know how it works. If you don't know thats okay.
If you specify more precisely what you mean by "trust verification" I have a better chance of explaining my view.
Vague words ("it") won't get us very far.
Was my assumption right? Was it not?
Not meaning to be offensive, but you're being a bit taciturn here.
I did explain how (in my opinion) trust verification works. If you disagree with my explanation I'm open to discussion/correction.