6 ms·

Yes, and we would all pay for this persons mistakes through increased insurance premiums. What if I don't want to have to pay for someone elses mistakes? What i

Yes, and we would all pay for this persons mistakes through increased insurance premiums. What if I don't want to have to pay for someone elses mistakes? What if there was a world in which one had to take responsibility for their money? No do overs. This is cryptocurrency.

giornogiovanna 8y ago
Okay, but you realize that most people want insurance, right? In this case, it wasn't even the guy's fault that Electrum displayed the hacker's message as something official. Do you really want a society where some other person's stupid mistakes can destroy your life?
- wallacoloo 8y ago
  > most people I’m pretty sure GP isn’t trying to say that everyone should use Bitcoin. The thing that gets annoying is that there is a crowd that campaigns this, and then other people (particularly in this comment section) fight back saying nobody should use Bitcoin. The obvious fact which I feel is somehow being overlooked here is that different people have different needs and there is no one-size-fits-all solution to banking today.
  - Nursie 8y ago
    And those people will be perfectly happy until it affects them. As a society, we tend to protect people from themselves because the other option is to let them die on the streets when they lose it all. Making people have insurance and using banks and payment systems that have built-in protection, is far cheaper than providing welfare for those that would otherwise be scammed out of every penny, irreversibly. You can be a self-serving ubermensch the same day you opt out of all social help.
    - feanaro 8y ago
      Opting out of all social help usually doesn't exist as an option at all.
      - Nursie 8y ago
        Indeed, and for good reason.
        feanaro 8y ago
        Is it? It sounds like an unnecessary application of force. It also seems disingenuous to phrase it as a choice but then admit there is no choice at all.
        Nursie 8y ago
        The point is that in this area people are terrible at making financial choices, and only ever think in the short term. This is why we have (for instance) laws about withdrawing funds from pension accounts etc. Because otherwise people raid their own retirement funds and end up reliant on the state. There absolutely is a choice - you can politically campaign for the right to opt out, or you can go and live in a country that doesn't have the protections you don't want. Most of them are pretty damn awful because they don't look after their citizens at all. What you don't get to do is live in a society with such protections and social measures and then not play by its rules.
        feanaro 8y ago
        > The point is that in this area people are terrible at making financial choices, and only ever think in the short term. It is hard for me to fully internalize this point when I have a counterexample readily available, albeit one that will do nothing to convince you. I consider myself capable of making sound financial decisions for myself and would never raid my own pension account, unless faced with immediate existential danger (in which case "raiding" it would be a rational decision). I disagree that the solution to that is to centralize funds in order to let a centralized body inefficiently misallocate (or sometimes outright steal) them and would appreciate the freedom to do this myself. I think the state has too much power and this is detrimental in the long run, as it is detrimental when any single entity has too much power. > There absolutely is a choice - you can politically campaign for the right to opt out, or you can go and live in a country that doesn't have the protections you don't want. > What you don't get to do is live in a society with such protections and social measures and then not play by its rules. I can certainly campaign politically, but that also includes respectfully disagreeing with your conclusion above. This does not make your position right and mine automatically wrong (nor vice versa). The rest of the quoted part of your post sounds like another non-choice (in that the it is highly impractical), followed by a moral judgement.
nradov 8y ago
In many cases of real world theft or bank fraud the money can be seized from the thief. No insurance is required for that. It's always better to have the option of do-overs.
yongjik 8y ago
Oh but you WILL pay for someone else's mistakes if you pay bitcoin to a merchant to buy something, the merchant gets hacked due to their own mistake, and then they cannot fulfill the deal. What are you going to do then?
- gammateam 8y ago
  tell people not to use a merchant that has no operating capital, can't deliver, and has poor OPSEC multisig escrow is a solution that works and a lot of people use for years, requires the service provider have their own resources and capital to fulfill the delivery of goods. not a solution for everyone, but a solution for many.
pavel_lishin 8y ago
> No do overs. Wasn't the DAO rolled back?
- spookthesunset 8y ago
  > Wasn't the DAO rolled back? The beauty of The DAO was that it wasn't even a hack or an attack. It was merely somebody cleverly exploiting a loophole in the contract everybody agreed to. After all in crypto-utopia "Code Is Law" and there is no interpretation of a contract outside of the code. The irony is the only actual theft that occurred was the ethereum devs rolling back the contract to save their own asses. The DAO single handedly proved that the blockchain is fully mutable and is certainly not trustless or censorship resistant. Hanging your hat on any blockchain requires you to trust the developers and miners to do you well. And if they don't... good luck getting your voice heard.

giornogiovanna 8y ago

Okay, but you realize that most people want insurance, right? In this case, it wasn't even the guy's fault that Electrum displayed the hacker's message as something official. Do you really want a society where some other person's stupid mistakes can destroy your life?

wallacoloo 8y ago
> most people I’m pretty sure GP isn’t trying to say that everyone should use Bitcoin. The thing that gets annoying is that there is a crowd that campaigns this, and then other people (particularly in this comment section) fight back saying nobody should use Bitcoin. The obvious fact which I feel is somehow being overlooked here is that different people have different needs and there is no one-size-fits-all solution to banking today.
- Nursie 8y ago
  And those people will be perfectly happy until it affects them. As a society, we tend to protect people from themselves because the other option is to let them die on the streets when they lose it all. Making people have insurance and using banks and payment systems that have built-in protection, is far cheaper than providing welfare for those that would otherwise be scammed out of every penny, irreversibly. You can be a self-serving ubermensch the same day you opt out of all social help.
  - feanaro 8y ago
    Opting out of all social help usually doesn't exist as an option at all.
    - Nursie 8y ago
      Indeed, and for good reason.
      - feanaro 8y ago
        Is it? It sounds like an unnecessary application of force. It also seems disingenuous to phrase it as a choice but then admit there is no choice at all.
        Nursie 8y ago
        The point is that in this area people are terrible at making financial choices, and only ever think in the short term. This is why we have (for instance) laws about withdrawing funds from pension accounts etc. Because otherwise people raid their own retirement funds and end up reliant on the state. There absolutely is a choice - you can politically campaign for the right to opt out, or you can go and live in a country that doesn't have the protections you don't want. Most of them are pretty damn awful because they don't look after their citizens at all. What you don't get to do is live in a society with such protections and social measures and then not play by its rules.
        feanaro 8y ago
        > The point is that in this area people are terrible at making financial choices, and only ever think in the short term. It is hard for me to fully internalize this point when I have a counterexample readily available, albeit one that will do nothing to convince you. I consider myself capable of making sound financial decisions for myself and would never raid my own pension account, unless faced with immediate existential danger (in which case "raiding" it would be a rational decision). I disagree that the solution to that is to centralize funds in order to let a centralized body inefficiently misallocate (or sometimes outright steal) them and would appreciate the freedom to do this myself. I think the state has too much power and this is detrimental in the long run, as it is detrimental when any single entity has too much power. > There absolutely is a choice - you can politically campaign for the right to opt out, or you can go and live in a country that doesn't have the protections you don't want. > What you don't get to do is live in a society with such protections and social measures and then not play by its rules. I can certainly campaign politically, but that also includes respectfully disagreeing with your conclusion above. This does not make your position right and mine automatically wrong (nor vice versa). The rest of the quoted part of your post sounds like another non-choice (in that the it is highly impractical), followed by a moral judgement.

nradov 8y ago

In many cases of real world theft or bank fraud the money can be seized from the thief. No insurance is required for that. It's always better to have the option of do-overs.

yongjik 8y ago

Oh but you WILL pay for someone else's mistakes if you pay bitcoin to a merchant to buy something, the merchant gets hacked due to their own mistake, and then they cannot fulfill the deal. What are you going to do then?

gammateam 8y ago
tell people not to use a merchant that has no operating capital, can't deliver, and has poor OPSEC multisig escrow is a solution that works and a lot of people use for years, requires the service provider have their own resources and capital to fulfill the delivery of goods. not a solution for everyone, but a solution for many.

pavel_lishin 8y ago

> No do overs. Wasn't the DAO rolled back?

spookthesunset 8y ago
> Wasn't the DAO rolled back? The beauty of The DAO was that it wasn't even a hack or an attack. It was merely somebody cleverly exploiting a loophole in the contract everybody agreed to. After all in crypto-utopia "Code Is Law" and there is no interpretation of a contract outside of the code. The irony is the only actual theft that occurred was the ethereum devs rolling back the contract to save their own asses. The DAO single handedly proved that the blockchain is fully mutable and is certainly not trustless or censorship resistant. Hanging your hat on any blockchain requires you to trust the developers and miners to do you well. And if they don't... good luck getting your voice heard.