3 ms·
that is kind of what the exchanges do. The thing is user friendly UX usually creates user friendliness by removing the user's ability to control the product. F
by achenet 4y ago
that is kind of what the exchanges do.
The thing is user friendly UX usually creates user friendliness by removing the user's ability to control the product. For example, macOS vs BSD. The GUI makes it much more user friendly, but at the cost of limiting the user a bit more. Then again, perhaps there are exceptions.
- jiveturkey 4y ago> that is kind of what the exchanges do. Well not really. the parent I replied to specifically qualified it as users holding their own wallets. I agree that is a critical component. Exchanges are a bit of a farce from the perspective of "not your wallet, not your coins". Like you say, exchanges that abstract this too much, for their benefit not yours, are probably distorting the original intent of a cryptocurrency. macOS doesn't have to hide all the knobs; they could have an advanced interface, which they do for some things. Why can't there be a wallet hardware/software that does the same? Is there something inherent that prevents this, making it "impossible"? Or is there just no business model around it, that can overcome the gravity of the kind of exchanges we have today. For example, are wallet addresses inherently unmanageable?