What Is Trust-Minimization, Really?究竟什么是Trust-Minimization？
This year, I have reread Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin whitepaper multiple times. The key point is the term Trust-Minimization, which is mentioned 14 times. Simply put, this concept represents the goal of the Bitcoin system. In simpler terms, trusted third parties can be seen as a security black hole, and Satoshi aimed to replace our traditionally centralized accounting systems, full of such security black holes, with an emergent decentralized system. Trust-Minimization essentially means minimizing reliance on "trust" institutions in the form of third parties.
When we understand the theoretical system of decentralization, we are likely to fall into different meanings in different vocabulary contexts. For example, it is obvious that different meanings are superimposed on cultural attributes, governance mechanisms, economics, and technology. However, no matter which layer has specific meaning or vague superposition, the key purpose is this Trust-Minimization, that is, trust minimization.
So let’s first distinguish between two words, Trustless and Trust-Minimization. Saab once wrote that the reason why the blockchain is not Trustless is because it is inevitable that we have to rely on nodes and developers. Miners, together with other participants, form this decentralized system. In other words, in layman's terms, it does not mean that there is no need for a trusted third party, but under certain restrictions, such as certain security and decentralization mechanism restrictions, we pursue a goal of minimizing trust. On the other hand, we may be more concerned about whether the system can achieve certain basic performance goals such as resistance to attack, resistance to collusion, and resistance to censorship under these restrictions, and whether it meets our requirements. In other words, trust minimization is a holistic, multi-level, bottom-up and top-down system design principle based on a certain level of security.
Today we can simply explore what is the principle of trust minimization from the five dimensions of theoretical system, technical system, economy, governance system, and community culture.
The first is the theoretical system level. Trust minimization is obviously the core principle of the decentralized theoretical system. That is because the complexity, multi-layering and development of the decentralized theoretical system require us to have a convergence goal when discussing the theoretical system. This goal is not only qualitative, but more often quantitative. Whether it is from cryptography, distributed technology, economics, and systems theory, when various legal theoretical systems appear independently or intersect, we have a very clear criterion that the theory relies on, which is trust minimization. Whether it is from mathematics, technology, economics, or legal theoretical systems, we have a holistic criterion. That is to say, theoretical principles that are contrary to this criterion are often contrary to the word decentralization. And often no matter how complex the theories and concepts appear, contrary to the trust minimization criterion, there are often many challenges in the process of consensus formation. The essence of a decentralized theoretical system is a multi-disciplinary, cross-border complex theoretical system, but precisely because of the emergence of the principle of trust minimization, we have the criteria for judging and selecting a certain theoretical system. For example, the concept of the Metaverse that we heard in the past is actually not a system in this so-called theoretical system. In fact, most of us cannot see the principle of trust minimization appearing. It is even precisely because of the trust transfer of third parties like Facebook that the so-called Metaverse concept system emerged. We still need to maintain a certain degree of caution towards such concepts and theoretical systems.
In addition, we are discussing DID and Desoul today. In fact, to a certain extent, the past cases of identity include the eye-catching ID project made by Sam of YC. There are also many decentralized identity projects. Then Desoul completely relies on some new theoretical systems. In fact, it really follows the most trust-based The minimization principle may be obviously proposed by Desoul, and in the past, most of it was just a transfer of trust from a third party in the past. It is obvious that we deserve a more consensus concept and theoretical system to build our "identity" (of course, the word identity itself is not correct, I would rather call it "state").
In layman's terms, whether it is crypto or a decentralized society, decentralization is relatively complete in the theoretical system on which our future depends, and trust minimization is the core principle. That is, anything that conforms to this criterion should be bold and active, and anything that goes against this criterion should be cautious.
Thirdly, it is the technical system. Of course, minimizing trust has become an important goal. In other words, when we design, develop, and iterate the system, we must consider trust minimization as a whole. It can simply be that under certain restrictions, can we try not to rely on one or a few highly trusted third parties to achieve multi-dimensional attack resistance, such as Bitcoin's resistance to witch attacks, computing power attacks, reverse calculation attacks of one-way encryption functions, etc. The same can also be said about the iteration of the system, that is, whether it relies entirely on a single foundation or developer, and a balance with forkability, or whether it must be subject to certain restrictions, such as the overall security of the system, and whether the system follows this trust minimization design. To put it simply, although decentralization is measured by quantitative values, the values themselves do not exist when the system is designed, so we can only simulate it to a certain extent during the system architecture through the principle of trust minimization. The decentralized impossible triangle is actually more like a balanced architecture, and the principle of this system architecture is what we call trust minimization. Obviously, the Bitcoin system satisfies this principle of minimizing trust better than the Ethereum system. For example, judging from the debate between Szabo and Vitalik, including last year’s debate between Suzhu and the Ethereum Foundation, the iteration of the system and the proactive actions of the foundation, at least in the world of decentralized systems, may not necessarily be completely developed in the direction of consensus building.
In fact, the design principle of this decentralized system, minimizing trust, is the opposite of the rapid iteration of Web2, which is fast but not broken. This is very interesting. This also explains the phenomenon that many entrepreneurs who used to be path-dependent in the Web field often backfired in the process of building decentralized systems. The deviation from trust minimization and rapid iteration has led to a certain degree of completely different engineering paradigms between the decentralized world and the centralized world.
From the perspective of the economy, trust minimization is even clearer. That is to say, trust minimization is similar to our understanding of disintermediation to a certain extent. That is, within an economy, whether the balance of supply and demand must reach such an economic balance point through a strong monetary organization or bank, or a centralized exchange. For example, we can evaluate the various economies of Layer 1. It is obvious from this criterion that the Ethereum ecosystem is relatively healthy from an economic perspective, compared to many other Layer 1 economies that rely on strong centralized trust transmission. This is also the value of decentralized financial protocols, which is that it has obviously broken many security black holes in the traditional financial system. Of course, there are still many security black holes in decentralized finance today. Of course, trust minimization obviously not only describes disintermediation, but also a principle of integrity within the economy. For example, it is obvious that the multi-token model is not an economic model that follows this principle. It does not mean that the multi-token model is unreliable, but that under the same constraints, adding a token model does not necessarily solve the problem. In more cases, it actually gives the economy more complex problems, and it must be treated with caution to a certain extent. In addition, the health and robustness of the economy are also related, that is, minimizing trust often requires a certain degree of bottom-up. From this perspective, it can also be explained that in fact, many ecologies that used centralized trust to deliver in the last bull market cycle often have some systematic risks during the entire economic downturn cycle of the bear market. For example, we are talking about recent typical cases, which are the former EOS ecology, Luna ecology, and Polkadot ecology. In fact, the economic mechanism deviates from the principles we mentioned to a certain extent.
Simply put, minimizing trust in our economy includes de-intermediation, de-collusion, and de-bubbles. It is obvious that there are many bottom-up technologies such as Token and NFT that can help achieve this goal.
In the dimension of governance, trust minimization is very similar to what we often say in Chinese: "Don't bother." This Chinese sentence vividly illustrates the meaning of this word at this level. That is, we can analyze Bitcoin, Ethereum and traditional national economies and corporate governance. In fact, most organizations do not necessarily follow this trust-minimizing design guideline in terms of governance. It is obvious that even the exemplary Vitalik Foundation has some shortcomings in its governance mechanism. Especially the fork of The DAO, the legitimacy of the governance of the Ethereum Foundation has been questioned. When this governance mechanism deviates from the principle of minimizing trust, the price that the organization needs to pay is often extremely high, which is why everyone is still struggling with this issue to this day. Of course, the governance dimension of today’s exploration of the decentralized world is only the beginning and is not very mature. It is just a token governance mechanism or a tokenless governance mechanism. Whether it is federal governance or parliamentary agency, a series of governance mechanisms are actually still in the exploratory stage. During this exploratory period, the principle actually becomes more important, which is to minimize trust. That is, the principle in which we design the governance mechanism is to make less or no trouble, rather than the other way around.
In other words, our governance mechanism must be designed by combining the top-down subjective initiative and bottom-up self-organizing characteristics of centralization, and unify the contradictions between the two. For example, we are talking about the governance of the DAO organization. If we follow the goal of minimizing trust, we may not have a perfect governance mechanism, but obviously we will have some simple and relatively stable governance principles. What is the charter of our DAO? What is the judgment and selection mechanism of our DAO? What can we change and what can't we change? What can be decided by the governance layer and what can be decided by the community as a whole?
Let’s briefly talk about the cultural attributes of the community. What is trust minimization? At this level, we are basically in the early stages of very open exploration. In fact, the identity of our community culture comes from three questions: Who am I? And who are we? And what is my relationship like with us?
In fact, Vitalik recently added a Chinese name, which is very interesting. Of course he is reading the Tao Te Ching. The Tao can be Tao, but it is not Tao. The name can be famous, but it is not famous. (In fact, it can be interpreted this way, that is, the rules exist and can be practiced, not unchanging, and the concepts can be clarified, but they are not what we usually think.) It is obvious that Vitalik is exploring a new cultural level mechanism issue, breaking the traditional identity or community identity based on decentralized Eastern and Western languages and nations. In fact, minimizing trust means at least using centralized "names" as the standard for value judgment and selection as little as possible within a certain cultural group.
Simply put, who am I? I am no longer the name given to me by my parents in Chinese, the name on my ID card, or my English name on WeChat on the Internet. No matter what the name is, it is just a codename for me, passed on with the help of centralized trust. On the contrary, by breaking the code name given to me by this traditional centralized organization, maybe I can better explore the question of who I am. Of course, we can simply understand that the emergence of Bitcoin has made me independent, at least in the economic dimension. With the determination of personal currency and asset ownership, in fact, the so-called "I" also becomes truly independent on a cultural level, at least in quasi-object culture. Of course, it is obvious that from a spiritual and humanistic perspective, the individual lacks identity. who I am? I am just a new economically sovereign individual inspired by Satoshi Nakamoto. At least now, I am not the name and code on my passport, but the independent owner of an address and assets, or in layman's terms, my things have become more of me.
And who are we? There is a certain kind of ethics, nation, family, morality, etc. that is collectively called culture. We are not the sum of 10,000 selves, but a cultural whole that has the integrity of many selves that do not exist. For example, with the emergence of NFT, we can see that one flower, one world, one leaf, one bodhi, that is to say, we actually find that there are very diversified cultural groups. For example, Azuki, Punk, and BAYC are obviously different groups. Because we believe in and hold different NFTs, our connections are different. Of course, this is great from the perspective of diversity and openness, but also in terms of humanistic spirit and fragmentation, we can also see that cultural conflicts between groups will begin to intensify. Who are we? We are just a group with a calculable materialized consensus. In layman’s terms, the community we live in is us, and the community to which we contribute the most may be us.
Of course, what about me and our relationship? This question is actually very interesting. In the language of Crypto, I am a part of our multi-layered and multi-role. We are just a bunch of me who have a special consensus. For example, I am from the Bitcoin community and the Ethereum community, but I am not from the Polkadot community. For example, I am from the Punk community, but actually I am not from the Monkey community. I am an individual in a decentralized community. Of course, I was born in China and educated in the United States. I can speak Chinese and English. Of course I belong to the Chinese community, and of course I partly belong to the English community. And we generally refer to our Chinese community, our Bitcoin community, our decentralized community, and our Punk community in different contexts. Obviously, from the perspective of things, the relationship between me and us is a kind of subordination and association relationship limited by smart contracts. This relationship is very pragmatic and calculable. But from a spiritual point of view, after the emergence of Satoshi Nakamoto, we have a more diversified and deeply intertwined meaning. Today, this cultural meaning can be seen in the emergence of cultural characteristics of different directions such as currency fetishism and modern Zen Buddhism. In layman's terms, we and I are becoming more and more unified from a material perspective, but we are becoming more and more separated from a spiritual perspective.
So in fact, trust minimization is the grafting of centralized trust in cultural identity. For example, when we talk about some names, compared to Chinese names and English names, we obviously prefer numbers. For example, the name 0x is good, and it is obviously more representative of certain decentralized cultural groups. For example, Azuki is obviously Asian culture. In fact, the language itself is decentralized, but it is true that the Chinese and English names themselves have too deep imprints of Eastern and Western cultures. For example, we say that Web3 currently has a certain revision culture, especially Jack Dorsey’s opposition to the capital-oriented Web3. In fact, if capital conspiracies become the mainstream culture, indeed the general results of Web3 and Web2 may be similar. Organizations and developers who have done their best to centralize matters under the banner of decentralization will be more empowered.
In layman's terms, can we understand it this way? Minimizing trust means not being attached. Of course, this is a saying in Buddhism. That is, try to be as little or not fall into or use the so-called representation, the representation of concepts, the representation of names, the representation of identity, and pay more attention to the entities under this shell and what the actual connection is like. We are just the Satoshi community, we are just the Ethereum community, we are just the Azuki or Clonex community, our consensus has different shades, and our choices also need to be verified. In fact, trust is minimized to a certain extent, which is to try not to use the evidence of names and appearances. Of course, today’s discussion on trust minimization at the community cultural level is obviously just the beginning.
Finally, we can actually imagine that minimizing trust is like a tightly wrapped walnut, slowly peeling off the layers of a seemingly hard shell. Only then did we see this real heart, and this heart is the purpose.
Perhaps starting from Steve Jobs, his realization of modern Zen Buddhism has begun to influence us subtly.
Or maybe Satoshi Nakamoto, who wrote the Bitcoin white paper, happened to see the Japanese name Satoshi Nakamato.
Perhaps the creators of Boring Ape hit the theme of Bored in a natural way.
Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.
I would like to dedicate these two Vajra Sutras to the practitioners of the new world.
Sky
on 13/06/2022
今年重读了不少遍中本聪的比特币白皮书，其实关键点就是提到了14次的这个词，叫做Trust-minimization。简单来说，这个词就是比特币这个系统的目标。而简单的理解就是Trusted third parties就是一种安全的黑洞，中本聪正是试图尽可能的让一个自涌现的去中心化系统来代替我们过去充满了安全黑洞的中心化的记账体系，可以说Trust-Minimization就是最小化第三方的“信任”机构。
当我们在理解去中心化这个理论体系的时候，我们很可能会陷入到不同语汇语境中的不同含义，比如在文化属性，治理机制，经济，技术层面很明显都有不同的含义叠加在一起。不过不管是哪一层的具体含义或者模糊的叠加在一起，关键的目的就在于这个Trust-Minimization，也就是信任最小化。
那么我们先来区分两个词，少信任（Trustless）和信任最小化（Trust-Minimization），萨博曾经写道，就是为什么区块链不是Trustless就是因为不可避免的，我们还得依靠节点，开发者，矿工，和其他参与者共同组建这个去中心化的系统，也就是通俗的说，其实并不是一味的说什么都不需要带信任的第三方，而是在某种限定条件下，比如一定的安全性和去中心化机制的限制条件下，我们追求一种信任最小化的目标。反过来说，我们可能更关注是在这些限制条件下，系统到达一定的抗攻击，抗共谋，抗审查等基础性能的目标是否达到我们的要求。也就是说，信任最小化，就是更是一种整体性，一定安全性基础上的，多层次的，自下而上和自上而下结合的系统设计原则。
我们今天可以简单的从理论体系，技术系统，经济体，治理体系，社区文化这五个维度来探讨一下究竟什么才是信任最小化的原则。
首先就是理论体系层面，信任最小化显然是去中心化理论体系的核心原则，也就是因为去中心化理论体系的复杂性，多层性，开发性，要求我们在理论体系探讨的时候需要一种收敛的目标出现，这种目的不单是一种定性的，更多时候就是一种定量的。不管是从密码学，分布式技术，还是经济学，还有系统理论，法学的各个理论的体系独立出现，或者是交叉出现的时候，我们就有了一个非常清晰的理论所依靠的准则，就是信任最小化，不管是从数学还是技术还是经济，法学的理论体系里面，我们都有一个整体性的准则出现。就是说与这个准则相反的理论原则往往是和去中心化这个词背道而驰的。并且往往就是不管多么复杂的理论和概念出现，与信任最小化准则相反的，往往在共识形成的过程中，就是挑战重重的。去中心化理论体系本质是多学科的跨界复杂理论体系，但是正是因为信任最小化原则的出现，我们就有了判断和选择某种理论体系的准则出现了。比如我们过去听到的元宇宙这个概念，其实在这个所谓的理论体系里面，当然也并未成体系，其实大部分我们是看不到信任最小化这个原则出现的，甚至恰恰是因为Facebook这样的强信任第三方的信任传递，才出现了所谓的元宇宙这个概念体系，我们对这样的概念和理论体系还是要保持一定的谨慎度。
另外就是我们今天探讨的DID和Desoul，其实一定程度上身份过去的案例有YC的Sam做的那个眼球的ID项目，去中心化身份项目也很多，然后Desoul就是完全依托一些新的理论体系，其实真正在遵循信任最小化原则的，可能明显也就是Desoul的提出，而过去的大多是过去信任第三方的信任转移而已，很明显我们值得拥有更有共识的概念和理论体系来建设我们的”身份“（当然身份这个词本身也不对，我更宁愿叫做”态“）。
通俗点说，就是crypto也好，去中心化社会也好，我们的未来所依托的理论体系里面去中心化是相对有一定完备性的，而信任最小化更是这中间的核心原则，也就是凡是符合这个准则的往往要大胆积极点，凡是与这个准则背道而驰的往往要小心谨慎点。
再次，就是技术系统，这个当然了就是信任最小化成为了重要的目标。也就是说，我们在系统设计，开发，迭代的时候，一定要整体性的考虑信任最小化。可以简单的就是在某种限制条件下，我们能否尽量不依赖某一个或者几个大信任的第三方，实现多维度的抗攻击性，比如比特币的抗女巫攻击，算力攻击，单向加密函数的反向计算攻击等。也可以在系统的迭代性上一样，就是是否完全依赖单一的基金会或者开发方，以及和可分叉性的一种平衡，还是要在一定的限制条件，比如系统整体安全性的限制下，而系统是否在遵循这个信任最小化设计。简单来说，去中心化尽管有定量的数值在衡量，但是系统在设计的时候因为数值本身还并没有，那么我们其实只能通过信任最小化这个原则在系统的架构时候来进行一定程度的模拟。去中心化的不可能三角其实更像是一种平衡架构，而这个系统架构的准则就是我们说的信任最小化。很明显，比特币系统要比以太坊系统更满足这个信任最小化的准则，例如萨博和Vitalik的争论，包含去年Suzhu和以太坊基金会的争论来看，系统的迭代和基金会的主动作为至少在去中心化系统的世界里面，未必完全是朝着凝聚共识的方向发展的。
其实这个去中心化系统的设计原则，信任最小化是和Web2曾经的快速迭代，唯快不破，是相反的，这一点很有意思。这个也解释了很多曾经Web领域路径依赖的创业者，在搭建去中心化系统过程中经常事与愿违的现象。信任最小化和快速迭代的偏离，导致了一定程度上去中心化世界和中心化世界工程范式的截然不同。
从经济体的角度来说，信任最小化就更清楚了，也就是信任最小化 和我们理解的去中介化首先就有了一定程度的类似。也就是在一个经济体内，供需关系的平衡是否要通过强有力的货币组织或者银行，或者中心化交易所达到这样的经济平衡点。比如我们可以来评估一下Layer1的各个经济体，很明显从这个准则上来说，其实以太坊生态相对来说经济角度是相对健康，相比于其他很多依托强有力的中心化信任传递才能建设的Layer1经济体来说。而去中心化金融协议的价值也在于此，就是很明显打破了非常多传统金融体系的安全黑洞而已，当然今天去中心化金融的本身安全黑洞还是蛮多。当然信任最小化，很明显不止是说明的是去中介化，而是一种经济体内整体性的原则。比如明显多种代币的模型很明显并不是在遵循这种原则下的经济模型，并不是说多代币模型并不可靠，而是说同样的限制条件下，并不一定就是增加一种代币模型就可以解决问题的，而更多情况下，其实给了经济体更复杂的问题，要一定程度上尽量谨慎的对待。另外就是经济体的健康度和鲁棒性也有关系，就是往往信任最小化需要一定程度的自下而上，从这个角度也能说明，其实有很多曾经在上个牛市周期借助中心化信任来进行传递的生态，往往会在熊市整个经济下行的周期内发生一些系统化的风险，比如我们说近期的典型案例，就是曾经的EOS生态，Luna生态，波卡生态，其实都在经济机制有一定程度在与我们说的准则偏离。
简单的说，我们经济体的信任最小化，包含了去强中介化，去共谋化，去泡沫化的意思，很明显这种目标的达成今天有非常多自下而上角度的技术比如Token和NFT可以帮忙实现这一目标了。
治理的维度，信任最小化就很类似我们经常中文说的不折腾，这句中文比较形象说明了这个词在这个层的意思。就是我们可以分析比特币，以太坊和传统国家经济体和公司治理来说，实际上大部分组织在治理的维度上都未必遵循这种信任最小化的设计准则。很明显即使是典范的Vitalik基金会，在治理机制上，也是有一些欠缺的部分，特别是当年The DAO的分叉，让以太坊基金会的治理正当性一直饱受质疑，这种治理机制偏离信任最小化原则之后的话，往往组织需要付出的代价是极高极高的，这也是为什么直到今天大家还在纠缠这个问题。当然，治理的维度今天去中心化世界的探索也只算是开始，而不是很成熟，不过是代币治理机制，还是无代币治理机制，不管是联邦治理还是议会代理，一系列的治理机制其实都还处于探索期。而这个探索期，其实原则就变得更重要了，就是信任最小化，就是我们设计治理机制的原则是为了少折腾或者不折腾，而不是反向为止。
也就是说我们的治理机制要结合中心化自上而下的主观能动性以及自下而上的自组织性的特点，来进行设计，并且就是统一好两者的矛盾。比如我们说的DAO组织的治理，如果我们遵循信任最小化的目标，我们未必有一个完美的治理机制，但是明显我们会有一些简单的比较稳定的治理准则，就是什么才是我们DAO的宪章？什么是我们DAO的判断和选择机制？什么是我们能改的，什么是我们不能改的？什么是治理层可以决定的，什么是社区全体可以决定的？
我们再来简单说一下社区文化属性这个层面，什么又是信任最小化？ 这个层面，我们基本上在于非常开放的探索初期。其实我们社区文化的认同，来自于三个问题，我是谁？而我们又是谁？而我和我们的关系是怎么样的？
其实最近Vitalik加了一个中文名就非常有意思。当然他有在阅读道德经，道可道，非常道，名可名，非常名。（其实可以这么来解读，就是规律是存在的，可以践行的，不是不变的，而概念是可以弄清楚的，但也不是通常我们认为的那样而已。） 很明显，Vitalik在探索一种新的文化层面的机制问题，破除传统的基于去中心化的东西方语言和民族的某种身份或者社区认同。其实信任最小化，至少是在某个文化群体内尽量少的通过中心化的“名”来作为价值判断和选择的标准。
简单的说，我究竟是谁？我不再是原来中文下面父母给我的名字，身份证上面的名字，或者是互联网微信上我的英文名，不管是什么名字，都不过是我的一个代号，借助中心化信任传递过来的代号而已。相反的，破除这个传统中心化组织给我的代号，可能我更能探索我究竟是谁这个问题。当然，我们可以简单理解，比特币的出现，让我至少在经济维度上，成为了独立的我。个人货币和资产所有权的确定，那么，其实所谓的“我”也在文化程度上，至少在拟物文化里面真正独立起来。当然，明显是从精神和人文上，个体相反的缺失了认同。我是谁？我是中本聪启发下的新的经济主权个人而已。至少在现在，我不是护照上的名字和代号，而是某个地址和资产的独立拥有者，或者通俗的说，我的东西更多成了我。
而我们是谁？这中间就存在着某种伦理，民族，家庭，道德等方面的统称为文化的部分了，我们并不是10000个我的加和，而是具备了很多一个我并不存在的整体性的一个文化整体。比如NFT的出现，我们就能看到一花一世界，一叶一菩提，就是说其实我们发现有非常多元化的文化群体出现，比如Azuki，Punk，BAYC明显是不同的群体，我们因为相信和持有不同的NFT导致我们连接的不同，当然这种从多元化和开放性角度是非常棒的，但是同样的在于人文精神和割裂性上来说，我们也能看到群体和群体之间的文化冲突也会开始加剧。我们是谁？我们不过是拥有着可计算的物化共识的群体而已。通俗的说，我们在的社区就是我们了，我们贡献最多的社区可能就越是我们。
当然，我和我们的关系又是怎么样的？这个问题其实非常有意思，用Crypto的语言来说，我是我们的多层次多角色的一份子，我们是一堆有了特别共识的我而已。比如我就是比特币社区的，也是以太坊社区的，不过我并不是波卡社区的。比如说，我是Punk社区的，但其实我并不是猴子社区的。我是一个去中心化社区的个体，当然，我在中国出生，也在美国受过教育，可以说中英文。我当然也属于中文社区，当然也部分属于英文社区。而我们一般在不同的语境下是指，我们中文社区，我们比特币社区，我们去中心化社区，我们Punk社区。很明显，在于现在从物的角度，我和我们之间，是一种类似智能合约限定下的从属和关联关系，这种关系是很务实可计算的。但是从精神的角度，我和我们之间，在中本聪出现以后，有了更多元化深层次的交叉之后的含义，这个文化含义今天可以看到有货币拜物，现代禅宗等不同走向的文化特征出现。通俗的说，我和我们之间在物的角度越来越统一，而在精神的角度越来越分离。
那么其实信任最小化，就是最喜欢文化认同里面的中心化信任的嫁接，比如我们说到一些名字，就是相对于中文名和英文名，其实明显我们更喜欢数字，比如0x 这个名字就不错，明显更能代表一定的去中心化文化群体，比如Azuki明显就是亚洲文化。其实语言本身是去中心化的，但是的确中文名和英文名本身背后带有了东西方文化的印记太深。比如我们说目前Web3有一定的修正文化存在，特别是Jack Dorsey反对资本导向的Web3，其实就是如果资本共谋成为主流文化的话，的确Web3和Web2的大致结果可能也是差不多的，可能打着去中心化旗号而竭尽中心化事宜的组织和开发者会更被赋能而已。
通俗的说，我们是否可以这么理解，信任最小化，就是不着相，当然这是佛学里面的话语。就是尽量少的或者不要落入或者利用所谓的表象，概念的表象，名的表象，身份的表象，而更多关注这个壳下面的实体以及实际连接是什么样的。我们不过中本聪社区，我们不过是以太坊社区，我们不过是Azuki或者Clonex社区，我们的共识也有深浅，我们的选择也需要验证。其实信任最小化，也有一定程度，就是尽量的不假借名相的实证。当然，今天关于信任最小化，在社区文化层面的探讨，很明显仅仅是一个开始。
最后，我们其实可以想象一下，信任最小化，就类似紧紧包裹的核桃，慢慢剥去层层仿佛坚硬的外壳。才见到这实在的心，而这心才是目的所在。
可能从Steve Jobs开始，他对于现代禅宗的悟证就已经开始潜移默化的影响着我们。
也或许是写下比特币白皮书的中本聪，恰好看到了Satoshi Nakamato这个日本名字。
更也许是无聊猿的创作者们，又很道法自然的击中了Bored这个新时代的主题词。
色即是空，空即是色。
谨以此两句金刚经文，献给新世界的实证者们。
Sky
于13/06/2022