3 ms·

If the consequence of my account being compromised is the bank adjusting the numbers in the ledger back then the bank are welcome to enforce such rules. If a b

If the consequence of my account being compromised is the bank adjusting the numbers in the ledger back then the bank are welcome to enforce such rules. If a bank said that customers were responsible for the money stored in the bank and that the bank could not undo transactions (from the POV of the genuine client) then we'd be demanding much stronger banking passwords.

bfuller 9y ago
The exchanges can just change a couple numbers in their database and reverse the hack... r-right?
- throwawayReply 9y ago
  Yes, if people accept fractional reserve banking for bitcoin. I'd actually assume that's how most exchanges operate under the hood but many people who buy into bitcoin for ideological reasons won't accept that. A consequence of making that formal is that the total owned amount of bitcoin would be more than 21m, because the hacker would own bitcoin and the users would own bitcoin on the exchange. As long as there isn't a bank run, that discrepancy would not be a problem, but it would deflate the currency, also seen as unacceptable to bitcoin purists. edit: access -> accept.
  - notyourday 9y ago
    Oh, rubbish. Bitcoin is fundamentally incompatible with sanity and a rule of law ( which is what is needed for regulation ). If I were to start a bitcoin exchange ( and myself and those that I know have way more technical abilities to actually pull it off ) and apply sane KYC and risk mitigation strategies, the crypto-nutcases would be screaming like banshees that the exchange is not acting in a "spirit" of bitcoin which is: 1) Allow anyone to launder money/coins 2) Ask no questions 3) Make all transactions irreversible (i.e. do not follow 'in the name of' ledger ) 4) Demand no validated tax information (i.e. leverage power of the government to make players play by the rules )
nikanj 9y ago
Actually getting tens-hundreds of millions out of the traditional banking system is _hard_. Transactions can always be reversed, and you'll never pull out millions in cash without some serious questions asked.

bfuller 9y ago

The exchanges can just change a couple numbers in their database and reverse the hack... r-right?

throwawayReply 9y ago
Yes, if people accept fractional reserve banking for bitcoin. I'd actually assume that's how most exchanges operate under the hood but many people who buy into bitcoin for ideological reasons won't accept that. A consequence of making that formal is that the total owned amount of bitcoin would be more than 21m, because the hacker would own bitcoin and the users would own bitcoin on the exchange. As long as there isn't a bank run, that discrepancy would not be a problem, but it would deflate the currency, also seen as unacceptable to bitcoin purists. edit: access -> accept.
- notyourday 9y ago
  Oh, rubbish. Bitcoin is fundamentally incompatible with sanity and a rule of law ( which is what is needed for regulation ). If I were to start a bitcoin exchange ( and myself and those that I know have way more technical abilities to actually pull it off ) and apply sane KYC and risk mitigation strategies, the crypto-nutcases would be screaming like banshees that the exchange is not acting in a "spirit" of bitcoin which is: 1) Allow anyone to launder money/coins 2) Ask no questions 3) Make all transactions irreversible (i.e. do not follow 'in the name of' ledger ) 4) Demand no validated tax information (i.e. leverage power of the government to make players play by the rules )

nikanj 9y ago

Actually getting tens-hundreds of millions out of the traditional banking system is _hard_. Transactions can always be reversed, and you'll never pull out millions in cash without some serious questions asked.