4 ms·

This right here is IMO the fundamental heart of the argument. Things like reversible transactions and such are features that were built into the banking system

This right here is IMO the fundamental heart of the argument. Things like reversible transactions and such are features that were built into the banking system, not bugs. It really comes down to a question of which feature set is valued more by an individual. The attempt to frame this in moralistic terms is just typical tech holy wars.

rspeele 6y ago
On a philosophical basis I do like the idea that no one person, nation, or corporation has control over the currency. And the irreversable nature of transactions is something I could accept, if I felt it was possible for me to have complete confidence in the security of my wallet. But just the software-based ways that I could potentially be stolen from are too plausible to ignore. I have never felt that I could say with total certainty that my system is not compromised or vulnerable to compromise. Even a bug written with no malice could be my undoing. Working in the software industry has given me very little faith in the infallibility of software, both open and closed source. Of course many people hold large quantities of crypto and are fine. But a few have it lost or stolen. Even super simple attacks sometimes work, like the malware that would poll the system clipboard waiting for it to contain for a BTC public key, and if found, swap it with one owned by the virus-writer -- so that you inadvertently paste the thief's key in as the destination for the transfer you're about to initiate. When I first heard about that attack, I thought it was clever and had to really think: hmm, would I have fallen for that? Usually I double check, but if they were smart enough to generate a large set of wallet public keys so they could replace the destination with one that starts with the same few characters, I probably could've been duped at some moment of carelessness.

rspeele 6y ago

On a philosophical basis I do like the idea that no one person, nation, or corporation has control over the currency. And the irreversable nature of transactions is something I could accept, if I felt it was possible for me to have complete confidence in the security of my wallet. But just the software-based ways that I could potentially be stolen from are too plausible to ignore. I have never felt that I could say with total certainty that my system is not compromised or vulnerable to compromise. Even a bug written with no malice could be my undoing. Working in the software industry has given me very little faith in the infallibility of software, both open and closed source. Of course many people hold large quantities of crypto and are fine. But a few have it lost or stolen. Even super simple attacks sometimes work, like the malware that would poll the system clipboard waiting for it to contain for a BTC public key, and if found, swap it with one owned by the virus-writer -- so that you inadvertently paste the thief's key in as the destination for the transfer you're about to initiate. When I first heard about that attack, I thought it was clever and had to really think: hmm, would I have fallen for that? Usually I double check, but if they were smart enough to generate a large set of wallet public keys so they could replace the destination with one that starts with the same few characters, I probably could've been duped at some moment of carelessness.