4 ms·

That’s equivalent to saying if a bank goes insolvent you should’ve had your money in a safe at home. For crypto yes you can have a hard wallet, but it can stil

That’s equivalent to saying if a bank goes insolvent you should’ve had your money in a safe at home. For crypto yes you can have a hard wallet, but it can still be stolen from you without anyone physically touching your hard wallet. I don’t and won’t see the appeal for crypto until it has a killer app that people NEED to use for another reason than “I can get rich quick”

siftrics 4y ago
Are you suggesting SBF would have physically stolen from millions of different human beings? How?
- mrhands556 4y ago
  No but with these exchanges collapsing I keep seeing the argument that it people kept everything in a soft or hard wallet then everything would be OK. I disagree with that premise for the reasons prior. Also in the case of Luna and many others their coins are effectively worthless.
  - siftrics 4y ago
    Totally valid criticism about the coins potentially being worthless. I just want to stop the ignorant, misinformed takes. It's so paradoxical that HN is paranoid about the government changing settings on your phone without your permission, and yet HN does not think we should prevent the government or an opaque set of third parties from arbitrarily seizing and freezing your money.
siftrics 4y ago
> that people NEED All the depositors have the extremely pressing NEED of not having all their deposits stolen from them. Blockchains mathematically prevent fraudulent misuse of deposits. People aren't mad about SBF taking a wrench to their head. They're mad about SBF defrauding them. Could not have happened on a blockchain.
- mrhands556 4y ago
  > Blockchains mathematically prevent the misuse of deposits Depending on the argument I hear that the ledger is anonymous or not anonymous.
  - siftrics 4y ago
    Anonymity is completely separate. Anonymity has nothing to do with the property that you cannot steal on the blockchain. How do you think blockchains even work? Read primary sources before vaguely disagreeing.
    - mrhands556 4y ago
      I assume you’re saying the way they prevent misuse is because the ledger is public and it’s trackable by anyone who wants to look at the ledger. If I’ve mistaken your argument then please correct me. I’m familiar with blockchain and have contributed to multiple projects in the open source community back when I saw potential and promise in blockchain tech.
      - siftrics 4y ago
        Yes, you're mistaken. If you're the only person with the private key, you're the only person who can move the funds. It's math. Unless you have a mathematical argument as to how to move funds without the private key, you're ignorant and uninformed.
        mrhands556 4y ago
        If you’re depositing into a bank or exchange it’s not like 1 person is controlling that entire entities wallet(s). Deposits have the same risk of being misused in crypto as in fiat.
        siftrics 4y ago
        DEXs exist. What you are talking about has nothing to do with blockchains or self-custody. Again, read primary sources and learn fundamental concepts before vaguely disagreeing.

siftrics 4y ago

Are you suggesting SBF would have physically stolen from millions of different human beings? How?

mrhands556 4y ago
No but with these exchanges collapsing I keep seeing the argument that it people kept everything in a soft or hard wallet then everything would be OK. I disagree with that premise for the reasons prior. Also in the case of Luna and many others their coins are effectively worthless.
- siftrics 4y ago
  Totally valid criticism about the coins potentially being worthless. I just want to stop the ignorant, misinformed takes. It's so paradoxical that HN is paranoid about the government changing settings on your phone without your permission, and yet HN does not think we should prevent the government or an opaque set of third parties from arbitrarily seizing and freezing your money.

siftrics 4y ago

> that people NEED All the depositors have the extremely pressing NEED of not having all their deposits stolen from them. Blockchains mathematically prevent fraudulent misuse of deposits. People aren't mad about SBF taking a wrench to their head. They're mad about SBF defrauding them. Could not have happened on a blockchain.

mrhands556 4y ago
> Blockchains mathematically prevent the misuse of deposits Depending on the argument I hear that the ledger is anonymous or not anonymous.
- siftrics 4y ago
  Anonymity is completely separate. Anonymity has nothing to do with the property that you cannot steal on the blockchain. How do you think blockchains even work? Read primary sources before vaguely disagreeing.
  - mrhands556 4y ago
    I assume you’re saying the way they prevent misuse is because the ledger is public and it’s trackable by anyone who wants to look at the ledger. If I’ve mistaken your argument then please correct me. I’m familiar with blockchain and have contributed to multiple projects in the open source community back when I saw potential and promise in blockchain tech.
    - siftrics 4y ago
      Yes, you're mistaken. If you're the only person with the private key, you're the only person who can move the funds. It's math. Unless you have a mathematical argument as to how to move funds without the private key, you're ignorant and uninformed.
      - mrhands556 4y ago
        If you’re depositing into a bank or exchange it’s not like 1 person is controlling that entire entities wallet(s). Deposits have the same risk of being misused in crypto as in fiat.
        siftrics 4y ago
        DEXs exist. What you are talking about has nothing to do with blockchains or self-custody. Again, read primary sources and learn fundamental concepts before vaguely disagreeing.