3 ms·
I think the key point here is that the insolvency window is not an obvious thing to avoid, however you can always check to see if you have the keys, regardless
by __dundernull__ 4y ago
I think the key point here is that the insolvency window is not an obvious thing to avoid, however you can always check to see if you have the keys, regardless of the state of the exchange. So without considering the insolvency of the exchange, if you don’t have the keys, a user shouldn’t think they have singular access to those coins. For this reason, I don’t think it makes you an asshat to assert that if you don’t have the keys you don’t have the coins. It’s meant to be a warning of something to avoid. Also how do you propose one avoid the insolvency window? It’s something that’s defined post-action, whereas evaluating ownership of the keys can be accomplished at any time.
- infotogivenm 4y agoI 100% agree with you that this is what OP intended. My point is it’s a base trivialization of the facts, and regardless of whether you use your own wallet or not exchange insolvency is a viable risk to users of the ecosystem. There is nothing “good” about it, and further making broad generalizations like this about financial victims that are not 100% correct is, indeed, asshat-ery. But the latter is merely an opinion and precludes how one treats others. > Also how do you propose one avoid the insolvency window? I do not propose it can be addressed, but maybe someone else has ideas.