> The possibility that a Libra node run by Mastercard or Andressen Horrowitz would suddenly start running malicious code is such a bizarre scenario to plan for and is better solved by simply enforcing protocol integrity and through non-technical (i.e. legal) means.
Hmm, I'm not sure I'm convinced. While "Mastercard as an entity turns into a malicious actor" doesn't seem like an important threat model, it seems to me maybe guarding against mailicious actors within (eg) Mastercard, as well as external attacks on Mastercard is? And justifies this stuff?
The possibliity that a node run by Mastercard would suddenly start running malcicious code doesn't seem that bizarre a scenario to me, if we remember it can happen not just cause the CEO of Mastercard directs it to, but because of criminal activities from hackers as well as employees for their own gain.
The author didn't say that we should trust MasterCard but he was saying that this trust issue can be solved much more efficiently via the legal system. And in practice the current system already works as billions entrust their financial transactions in these institutions.
Some people have the tendency to think that technology could solve anything and should be allowed to solve everything. This Libra thing is no better than the crypto-currencies.
Ok, now what if the legal system is the one trying to get them to run the malicious code?
For example, governments, in the past, have tried to prevent bank transactions from being sent to wiki leaks, even though they were never charged with any crimes.
The credit card transactions failed to go through, but the crypto transactions DID succeed.
Crypto currencies seem to have done a pretty good job so far, of preventing this attack vector.
I can think of no examples where a government has taken over a crypto currency yet.
Hmm, I'm not sure I'm convinced. While "Mastercard as an entity turns into a malicious actor" doesn't seem like an important threat model, it seems to me maybe guarding against mailicious actors within (eg) Mastercard, as well as external attacks on Mastercard is? And justifies this stuff?
The possibliity that a node run by Mastercard would suddenly start running malcicious code doesn't seem that bizarre a scenario to me, if we remember it can happen not just cause the CEO of Mastercard directs it to, but because of criminal activities from hackers as well as employees for their own gain.
Am I wrong?