Even though the terms are related, I did not talk about "risk" but about "trust".
If you think there is no way around trusting some party, then please name which party that would be. And why one cannot use Bitcoin without trusting them.
If you think there is no way around trusting some party, then please name which party that would be. And why one cannot use Bitcoin without trusting them.
Just use traditional finance and traditional banks. Because then at least you will have more hope of getting transactions reversed if you get scammed by any of the elaborate and unlikely device subversion or middlemanning methods that Bitcoin transactions are also susceptible to (those methods that you've alluded to already here)
That's a very first world centrist view. In my country the banks/government have outright stolen people's money in the past[1]. Most people don't trust the banks here, with good reason. When you put your money in the banks, you are trusting the "system" with your money.
And for shitty countries, something like Bitcoin is more trustworthy than the banking system.
The most well known point of trust in 51% attacks. Lesser known is bitcoin master nodes. Even lesser realised is the trust that your client is connected to the broader bitcoin network (and not segregated somehow). This also assumes trust in your client, which can also perform all kind of attacks (such as not reusing R values: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=581411.0)
There's no such thing as no trust, only different threat models. I'd reccomend reading https://www.threatmodelingmanifesto.org/