2 ms·

Maybe I'm misreading, but can you give one "instance in which A's money moved to B without A's consent."? I suppose you mean phishing attacks or some form of h

Maybe I'm misreading, but can you give one "instance in which A's money moved to B without A's consent."? I suppose you mean phishing attacks or some form of hack on an exchange or end user.

b_tterc_p 8y ago
Sure. Those qualify. I also like to highlight the opportunity for violent physical crime. I have no idea if this story is true but it is at least representative. http://altdigitalcurrency.com/police-arrest-gang-that-kidnapped-wealthy-bitcoin-holders/ http://altdigitalcurrency.com/police-arrest-gang-that-kidnap... I'd bet that the police were unable to recover anything that the gang members robbed. Crypto introduces a weird situation in which you either: A - keep all of your private keys at home which is effectively just like keeping all of your cash at home, but in easily distributable packages or B - trust some third party entity to hold and protected your assets from what looks like fraudulent transactions. I would imagine a world in which everyone has crypto as their currency would have a lot more physical crime, home break ins, and robberies.
- decentralised 8y ago
  Those would not qualify actually. IMHO, the class of attacks on humans is never solvable at protocol layer and the statement you made that funds from A can be moved without A's action is both technically and practically incorrect. I come from a family of policemen and consider that cryptocurrency adoption will lead us to a scenario where your assets can't be taken away from you because they can't be linked to your physical identity in the first place. The idea that others will protect your personal property on your behalf actually puts you and your assets at danger in more sinuous and violent ways, either by theft or injunction or even by clerical mistake.
  - b_tterc_p 8y ago
    They are already solved, or at least safeguarded against to a highly useful degree. If you try to withdraw all of your money at an ATM, the ATM will say "no, that looks fraudulent." If you try to transfer your savings account to an unknown individual, the bank will say "no, that looks fraudulent". At worst, bank transfers are sent to people with verified identities, which makes crime hard. If you do this with crypto, it will say "ok". If crypto is the main currency then it will be tied to your physical identity, because you will "use" it- and whatever medium you're using to convey that payment, be it a QR code on a physical card or a phone app, has significantly increased risk if lost or stolen or forcibly abused. Much of the benefits of crypto for non major financial transactions can be solved with cash and a shady hoody. But laypeople still use banks, because what they really want is risk reduction, and for 99% of the population, banks provide that.
    - decentralised 8y ago
      "Much of the benefits of crypto for non major financial transactions can be solved with cash and a shady hoody." Just the other day some guy on HN was adamant that bitcoin was "only" useful to buy drugs without having to meet shady people. I thought he was short sighted but you can't even see the benefit in _that_ specific disintermediation... In all honesty, when I read things like what you just wrote, it doesn't make me want to spend my time showing you a different point of view because I don't believe you are able to learn from the experiences of others.

Maybe I'm misreading, but can you give one "instance in which A's money moved to B without A's consent."? I suppose you mean phishing attacks or some form of hack on an exchange or end user.

b_tterc_p 8y ago

Sure. Those qualify. I also like to highlight the opportunity for violent physical crime. I have no idea if this story is true but it is at least representative. http://altdigitalcurrency.com/police-arrest-gang-that-kidnapped-wealthy-bitcoin-holders/ http://altdigitalcurrency.com/police-arrest-gang-that-kidnap... I'd bet that the police were unable to recover anything that the gang members robbed. Crypto introduces a weird situation in which you either: A - keep all of your private keys at home which is effectively just like keeping all of your cash at home, but in easily distributable packages or B - trust some third party entity to hold and protected your assets from what looks like fraudulent transactions. I would imagine a world in which everyone has crypto as their currency would have a lot more physical crime, home break ins, and robberies.

decentralised 8y ago
Those would not qualify actually. IMHO, the class of attacks on humans is never solvable at protocol layer and the statement you made that funds from A can be moved without A's action is both technically and practically incorrect. I come from a family of policemen and consider that cryptocurrency adoption will lead us to a scenario where your assets can't be taken away from you because they can't be linked to your physical identity in the first place. The idea that others will protect your personal property on your behalf actually puts you and your assets at danger in more sinuous and violent ways, either by theft or injunction or even by clerical mistake.
- b_tterc_p 8y ago
  They are already solved, or at least safeguarded against to a highly useful degree. If you try to withdraw all of your money at an ATM, the ATM will say "no, that looks fraudulent." If you try to transfer your savings account to an unknown individual, the bank will say "no, that looks fraudulent". At worst, bank transfers are sent to people with verified identities, which makes crime hard. If you do this with crypto, it will say "ok". If crypto is the main currency then it will be tied to your physical identity, because you will "use" it- and whatever medium you're using to convey that payment, be it a QR code on a physical card or a phone app, has significantly increased risk if lost or stolen or forcibly abused. Much of the benefits of crypto for non major financial transactions can be solved with cash and a shady hoody. But laypeople still use banks, because what they really want is risk reduction, and for 99% of the population, banks provide that.
  - decentralised 8y ago
    "Much of the benefits of crypto for non major financial transactions can be solved with cash and a shady hoody." Just the other day some guy on HN was adamant that bitcoin was "only" useful to buy drugs without having to meet shady people. I thought he was short sighted but you can't even see the benefit in _that_ specific disintermediation... In all honesty, when I read things like what you just wrote, it doesn't make me want to spend my time showing you a different point of view because I don't believe you are able to learn from the experiences of others.