4 ms·
Equally, the technical architecture of this bot - they have all the private keys and thus custody of the funds - isn't necessary at all. The author could have u
by petertodd 9y ago
Equally, the technical architecture of this bot - they have all the private keys and thus custody of the funds - isn't necessary at all. The author could have used payment channels instead, and never had custody of a non-trivial amount of user funds.
You can't do that with the conventional financial system.
- whack 9y agoIn a conventional financial system, people literally hand over their cash to a bank, with the expectation that they the bank won't take that money and run off into the sunset. The only thing that safeguards this expectation is legal enforcement. The same legal enforcement could also be applied to any cryptocurrency-based "bank" or store. Ie, When it comes to fraud like this, if you're looking for someone to blame, blame the lack of regulations and legal enforcement. Not the concept or technical architecture of cryptocurrencies.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mdekkers 9y agowith the expectation that they the bank won't take that money and run off into the sunset I know a whole bunch of people in Cyprus that beg to disagree
- petertodd 9y agoWell, I think my point there is that cryptocurrencies provide two avenues for imposing regulation: legal and technical regulation. My payment channel suggestion is an example of the latter. And of course, you can use both: competent fintech "blockchain" use-cases are all examples of adding technical regulation to a field that's already legally regulated.
- whack 9y agoAh, I see your point now. Sorry.
- fixermark 9y ago... legal enforcement that includes the government's ability to just cut the victims a big chunk of fiat currency to make them whole. It's a very solid guarantee when it comes to savings in an FDIC-insured bank.