4 ms·
There are checks in place to make difficult to buy an SSL certificate for the official domain of a bank. At least Chrome tracks malicious websites. By compari
by markstos 5y ago
There are checks in place to make difficult to buy an SSL certificate for the official domain of a bank.
At least Chrome tracks malicious websites.
By comparison, there seem to be no checks in place to prevent writing an ethereym contract that drains a victim’s wallet.
- doopy1 5y agoActually most web3 wallets have their own version of "safe browsing" and track malicious/phishing web3 websites.
- Rastonbury 5y agoThere isn't much point if domains and contracts are being setup for the sole purpose of spearfishing a handful of whales.
- doopy1 5y agoAlright, then same goes for the parent comment within the context of spear phishing...
- Osiris 5y agoThere a number of services that provide blacklisted addresses to help people avoid scams or to prevent stolen funds from being laundered.
- aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
- aaaaaaaaata 5y agoThe ACH banking protocol doesn't have these either. This isn't Ethereum's job. It's an L2's job. Whichever ones you choose to engage with. But, they'll all be interoperable.
- fragmede 5y agoAnyone that's sent crypto from Polygon to Coinbase would disagree about interoperability.
- aaaaaaaaata 5y agoPolygon is a centralized project, and its problems are its own. Not a decentralized cryptocurrency.
- ikt 5y ago> There are checks in place to make difficult to buy an SSL certificate for the official domain of a bank. Who said it needed to be a real bank? > At least Chrome tracks malicious websites. That's not TCP/IP, the chrome equivalent would be on Trustwallet, argent, metamask etc to implement.