Well yes, that's obvious...any interaction with someone else require you to 'trust' that they'll do what they say. I think you misunderstanding the context of trust-less in regards to bitcoin though.
Maybe, but I think you're missing my point. When you buy Bitcoin (or whatever) you're betting that someone will want to trade you something else for it in the future. That "someone else" isn't a concrete entity, and "they" haven't given you any assurances of any kind.
I was replying to an argument that cryptocurrencies are superior to state-issued fiat because they don't require trust. IMO this is nonsense. Using anything with zero intrinsic value as a store of value is a gigantic leap of faith.
Where does the 100 dollars to spend on 2 coins come from? Turning off your rig would give you 100 like selling would. It's already established you're a liar though.
From the same place as the money to pay for electricity would have come from... It's a simple arithmetic problem; John has USD 100, he can either spend it on electricity (to produce 1 BTC) or he can buy 2 BTC. Obviously owning 2 BTC is better than owning just 1, so the more profitable path is to spend the money buying BTC instead of paying for electricity to mine at a loss. I hope this helps.
They still pre-emptively ban numbers, for instance if they represent something illegal: "Any image file or an executable program can be regarded as simply a very large binary number. In certain jurisdictions, there are images that are illegal to possess, due to obscenity or secrecy/classified status, so the corresponding numbers could be illegal."
Also, the concept of "numbers yet to be found" is philosophically questionable.
“Special” is a human concept which may not exist objectively, empirically. Distinct, unique, etc... are probably more honest, assuming that we don’t exist in a multiverse.
No, but then, I like physics so I’d start rattling off fundamentals like the hyperfine transitions of Hydrogen, the speed of light in vacuum, and the mass of the proton.
