Trustless Blockchain: Beyond the Rhetoric

Over the past several years, I've had discussions with founders, VCs, and technical experts within the blockchain space. These discussions have revealed a common theme: a widespread misunderstanding of what 'trustless' really means. While many discuss trustlessness, few truly implement or understand its implications. Invariably, among the first objections to the notion of a tokenless blockchain is “What is going to incentivize the validators of the network to operate in good faith in the absence of crypto block rewards?”

I reject this premise. Fundamentally, being trustless means that trust of anyone is not required, the validator set included. One of the salient features of public blockchains is that anyone can independently operate the node software of the network and verify the state of that network, including its transactions firsthand.

On that note, let’s clear up another common misconception.

Security and Consensus on a Trustless Network

Often used interchangeably, security and consensus are common attributes we hear discussed in blockchain discourse today. They are not interchangeable. 

Strong cryptography is the security of a blockchain; censorship-resistance is the role of consensus.

Security as it applies to a blockchain is the ability to refute or alter the state of network fraudulently. To break the security of a public blockchain would require breaking the strong cryptographic proofs that are used in every signature, transaction, block, and hash of the network (a task that is widely considered impossible today).

Consensus is as simple as it sounds – how multiple individuals agree on what the current state of the network is today. Typically this applies to the consensus of validators on a given network. Consensus does not ensure the security of a transaction itself, rather consensus ensures that other readers of the network are looking at the agreed upon state of that network. This state is largely the order in which transactions have occurred, although on many blockchains this extends to minting and burning of native tokens as well.

The full node makes public blockchain trustless, not the validator 

On most public blockchains today, there is little difference between a validator node and a full node. A full node performs all the same operations as a validator node, other than propose or validate blocks. Anyone in the world can run a full node on a public blockchain, since it is open-source, permissionless software.
This means you don’t have to trust validators' claims—you can independently verify each transaction on your own node. This is key to a trustless network because it helps demonstrate that all node operators are constructing and verifying the state of the network, even individual operators. 

The importance of self-sovereignty and trustless node software isn't a new idea; it’s blockchain’s bedrock. Recent terms like "intersubjective forking," tokenize this process, complicating what is a straightforward concept. In fact, in the absence of a native token the security of the network is strengthened, as there is no longer a need to introduce offchain activities such as native token minting and burning. Similarly, censorship resistance is strengthened without the financial incentive to pay for a role as censor.

By operating a full node, you become a part of the network’s security framework without having to rely on the word of validators or any central authority. This approach embodies the true spirit of trustlessness that blockchain originally promised.

The tokenless design of STABILITY

As previously discussed, validators don't secure a network, nor do they ensure a network is trustless in nature. Validators serve two roles: the securing of a native currency’s offchain activities (typically minting and burning) and encouraging a high degree of censorship-resistance.

Without the need to secure a native currency, the Proof of Authority consensus mechanism – well tested on popular public blockchains today – is ideal for STABILITY. All STABILITY validators will be known public entities to ensure their physical decentralization, technical competence, and neutral position on network censorship. Regarding incentivization, validators benefit from unlimited use of the network as a cost-saving business utility, including features such as private transactions - an interesting topic perhaps worth exploring in a future article.

Watch this 2 minute video as I explain how STABILITY is designed with trustlessness in mind.

The Transformative Potential of a Global Trust Network

Understanding the transformative potential of a global trust network is crucial. Blockchain technology is poised to revolutionize how we establish trust on a global scale. Its promise lies in creating truly trustless environments where transactions and data exchanges are verifiable by anyone, anywhere, without reliance on any central authority. This has profound implications for sectors like supply chain management, healthcare, and finance, where the integrity of information is critical. At STABILITY, we are taking this a step further by removing the complexities of cryptocurrency, thereby making the network truly permissionless and accessible to all.