3 ms·

> But in the crypto-currency world, you make one mistake and you are done. There's no recourse, no getting your money and/or assets back. What recourse do you

> But in the crypto-currency world, you make one mistake and you are done. There's no recourse, no getting your money and/or assets back. What recourse do you suggest? There are already multi-sig, time locked wallets that can get around many of these issues, if users want to opt in to using them. But making transactions somehow reversible by default would kind of defeat the purpose. Reversible transactions are good for the sender but bad for the receiver. I don't see any way around that, a tradeoff must be made.

ninepoints 5y ago
Stating the obvious, but the recourse is to not bother with crypto at all and stick with insured and better safeguarded financial mechanisms.
- thebean11 5y ago
  > better safeguarded Again, better safeguarded in some ways (or for some participants), less for others.
  - ninepoints 5y ago
    Hard to imagine how an economic system that has literally no real safeguards against wash trading is "safer" in any sense.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    This is the primary barrier to adoption and one that is, IMO, insurmountable. The ways in which traditional currency is safeguarded is far more important to most of the population. I completely understand some people's hesitancy around government regulation and it's totally sane given what some folks have lived through. But the consolidation of banking institutions in the real world is pretty clearly mirrored in the cryptoworld and that side of banking is already far less reliable than real world banking. Mt. Gox was a while ago, sure, but a lot of people lost a lot of money doing something that shouldn't have been dangerous. Most of the population trusts the government more than enough to protect themselves against this sort of blatant fraud and, at this point, I think most crypto currency is legitimately held by speculators which can create liquidity to drive transactions but which, on its own, does not a market make.
    - hdsjfg 5y ago
      >But the consolidation of banking institutions in the real world is pretty clearly mirrored in the cryptoworld and that side of banking is already far less reliable than real world banking. Crypto doesn't have "banking". Exchanges are fairly centralized, but it's a misuse of the technology to use an exchange for custody. There are some crypto lending platforms, but they are not banks. >...most crypto currency is legitimately held by speculators which can create liquidity to drive transactions but which, on its own, does not a market make. Liquidity is provided by market makers, who (by definition) are not holding or speculating.
      - elefanten 5y ago
        Except for when those market makers also do a bunch of other things... such as holding and speculating.
        hdsjfg 5y ago
        Of course. Butlers aren't murderers, except for when they are!
nradov 5y ago
Cryptocurrency transactions are reversible through the legal system. If you violate a contract or commit fraud then I can sue you in civil court and get a judgment, which you'll have to satisfy by repaying the cryptocurrency (or fiat equivalent). Of course enforcing that judgment against a defendant in another country might be difficult.

ninepoints 5y ago

Stating the obvious, but the recourse is to not bother with crypto at all and stick with insured and better safeguarded financial mechanisms.

thebean11 5y ago
> better safeguarded Again, better safeguarded in some ways (or for some participants), less for others.
- ninepoints 5y ago
  Hard to imagine how an economic system that has literally no real safeguards against wash trading is "safer" in any sense.
- munk-a 5y ago
  This is the primary barrier to adoption and one that is, IMO, insurmountable. The ways in which traditional currency is safeguarded is far more important to most of the population. I completely understand some people's hesitancy around government regulation and it's totally sane given what some folks have lived through. But the consolidation of banking institutions in the real world is pretty clearly mirrored in the cryptoworld and that side of banking is already far less reliable than real world banking. Mt. Gox was a while ago, sure, but a lot of people lost a lot of money doing something that shouldn't have been dangerous. Most of the population trusts the government more than enough to protect themselves against this sort of blatant fraud and, at this point, I think most crypto currency is legitimately held by speculators which can create liquidity to drive transactions but which, on its own, does not a market make.
  - hdsjfg 5y ago
    >But the consolidation of banking institutions in the real world is pretty clearly mirrored in the cryptoworld and that side of banking is already far less reliable than real world banking. Crypto doesn't have "banking". Exchanges are fairly centralized, but it's a misuse of the technology to use an exchange for custody. There are some crypto lending platforms, but they are not banks. >...most crypto currency is legitimately held by speculators which can create liquidity to drive transactions but which, on its own, does not a market make. Liquidity is provided by market makers, who (by definition) are not holding or speculating.
    - elefanten 5y ago
      Except for when those market makers also do a bunch of other things... such as holding and speculating.
      - hdsjfg 5y ago
        Of course. Butlers aren't murderers, except for when they are!

nradov 5y ago

Cryptocurrency transactions are reversible through the legal system. If you violate a contract or commit fraud then I can sue you in civil court and get a judgment, which you'll have to satisfy by repaying the cryptocurrency (or fiat equivalent). Of course enforcing that judgment against a defendant in another country might be difficult.