3 ms·
> allowing any two willing parties to transact directly And what happens if one of the parties is not willing? If someone's e-wallet gets broken into and funds
by throw0101a 4y ago
> allowing any two willing parties to transact directly
And what happens if one of the parties is not willing? If someone's e-wallet gets broken into and funds are transferred? How does any current system handle that situation?
A lot of folks consider irreversibility a feature, when there's a strong case to be made that it is a bug.
- tiluha 4y agoThe system does not handle it. If that is a problem for you, then cryptocurrencies are not for you. In a way it's like cash. If your wallet is stolen, there is no easy way to get your money back.
- jlmb 4y agoIn reality, a crypto wallet is better compared to a bank account, though. Most people don't carry their life savings (or comparable amounts) in cash.
- throw0101a 4y ago> In reality, a crypto wallet is better compared to a bank account, though. Most people don't carry their life savings (or comparable amounts) in cash. I would think it was the exact opposite. A 'regular' bank account has reversibility, and so if there are some shenanigans you can (potentially) get your money back. With a cryptocurrency 'bank account' (wallet), if anything bad happens you're SOL.
- hnthrow1010 4y ago>then cryptocurrencies are not for you. What this means to me is that cryptocurrencies are not for anybody. We don't have to create digital systems with the limitations of cash. We haven't had to do that for decades. Now there's a push to go back to the time before that, for (in general) no discernible reason besides people gambling on the price.