4 ms·

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 m

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.

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.