Cryptographic systems like Bitcoin and the Lightning Network are systems that allow you to transact with people (and computers) that you don't trust. This is often referred to as "trustless" operation, even though it is not actually trustless. You have to trust in the software that you run and you have to trust that the protocol implemented by that software will result in fair outcomes.
The big distinction between a cryptographic system like this and a traditional financial system, is that in traditional finance you trust a _trusted third party_, for example a bank, to ensure that outcomes are fair. A significant problem with such systems is that they give too much power to the third party and they are also vulnerable to a _single point of failure_. If the trusted third party itself violates trust or attempts to cheat, the basis of trust breaks.
As you study cryptographic systems, you will notice a certain pattern: instead of relying on a trusted third party, these systems attempt to prevent unfair outcomes by using a system of incentives and disincentives. In cryptographic systems you place trust in the _protocol_, which is effectively a system with a set of rules that, if properly designed, will correctly apply the desired incentives and disincentives. The advantage of this approach is two fold. Not only do you avoid trusting a third party, you also reduce the need to enforce fair outcomes. So long as the participants follow the agreed protocol and stay within the system, the incentive mechanism in that protocol achieves fair outcomes without enforcement.
The use of incentives and disincentives to achieve fair outcomes is one aspect of a branch of mathematics called _game theory_, which studies "models of strategic interaction among rational decision makers" footnote:[Wikipedia "Game Theory": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory]. Cryptographic systems that control financial interactions between participants, such as Bitcoin and the Lightning Network rely heavily on game theory to prevent participants from cheating and allow participants who don't trust each other to achieve fair outcomes.
While game theory and its use in cryptographic systems may appear confounding and unfamiliar at first, chances are you're already familiar with these systems in your everyday life, you just don't recognize them yet. Below we'll use a simple example from childhood to help us identify the basic pattern. Once you understand the basic pattern you will see it everywhere in the blockchain space and you will come to recognize it quickly and intuitively.
In this book, we call this pattern a _Fairness Protocol_ defined as a process that uses a system of incentives and/or disincentives to ensure fair outcomes for participants who don't trust each other. Enforcement of a fairness protocol is only necessary to ensure that the participants can't escape the incentives or disincentives.
==== A fairness protocol in action
Let's look at an example of a fairness protocol, which may be familiar to any reader, perhaps as a memory from their childhood.
Imagine a family lunch, with a parent and two children present. The parent has prepared a bowl of fried potatoes ("french fries" or "chips" depending on which English dialect you use). Two siblings must share the plate of chips. The parent must ensure a fair distribution of chips to each child, otherwise the parent will have to hear constant complaining (maybe all day) and there's always a possibility of the unfair situation escalating to violence. What is a parent to do?
There are several ways that fairness can be achieved in this scenario. The naive but commonly used method is for the parent to use their authority as a trusted third party: they split the bowl of chips into two servings. This is similar to a traditional banking scenario, where the bank acts as a trusted third party to prevent any cheating between two customers who transact.
The problem with this scenario is that this puts a lot of power in the hands of the trusted third party. The parent is accused of playing favorites and not sharing the chips equally. The siblings may fight over the chips, dragging the parent into their fight.
But a much better solution exists: the siblings are taught to play a game called "split and choose". At each lunch one sibling splits the bowl of chips into two servings and the *other* sibling gets to choose which serving they want. Almost immediately, the siblings figure out the dynamic of this game. If the one splitting makes a mistake or tries to cheat, the other sibling can "punish" them by choosing the bigger bowl. It is in the best interest of both siblings, but especially the one splitting the bowl, to play fair. Only the cheater loses in this scenario. The parent doesn't even have to use their authority or enforce fairness. All the parent has to do is _enforce the protocol_; as long as the siblings cannot escape their assigned roles of "splitter" and "chooser", the protocol itself ensures a fair outcome without the need for any intervention. The parent can't play favorites or distort the outcome.
Note: the split and choose protocol was a favorite protocol of Andreas' parents, they taught him game theory early!
