3 ms·
Sure but it's trivial to split funds across accounts to mitigate that (even dynamically), unlike with cards where getting/activating a new one is a major hassle
by argvargc 6y ago
Sure but it's trivial to split funds across accounts to mitigate that (even dynamically), unlike with cards where getting/activating a new one is a major hassle.
- viraptor 6y agoIn theory yes. In practice: 1. those keys will be accessible from the same place/machine 2. people won't do it correctly or will ignore the issue. (if developers can't reliably manage PGP keys, general population balancing multiple wallets is just not happening)
- argvargc 5y agoYes, these are concerns, but anything like this will not ultimately be left to consumers to deal with. As part of the process of crypto becoming widely-adopted, this class of problems is in the process of being solved in ways that are transparent to the user, and that will continue. The fact we are still speaking in terms of the base layer at all in terms of many projects, reveals the stage of development we are at. It's a bit like worrying about how internet users will deal with IP packets that don't arrive, in the context of thinking about about how smooth an experience they're going to have surfing the web. It's not, and won't be, their problem to deal with. The fact adoption has rushed ahead such that many multi-millions of users are faced with the base layer is analogous to if millions had rushed into using the internet when it was command-line only. Sure, if that had happened, many people would make mistakes and delete their drives or whatever - and this illustrates how wanted and overdue crypto is. There are tremendous consequences of using this tech at the base layer incorrectly, but it doesn't appear to be dissuading adoption.