4 ms·

What difference you mean, aside from the lack of a regulatory framework, pseudonymity (and paradoxically, lack of privacy), lack of recourse in the face of user

What difference you mean, aside from the lack of a regulatory framework, pseudonymity (and paradoxically, lack of privacy), lack of recourse in the face of user error, and custodial issues? The "not your keys not your coins" take is hilariously dumb in light of how much "value" has evaporated in personal custodial failure. The currency and its supporting infrastructure has everything to do with it, and crypto fails basic litmus tests to even attempt to go mainstream.

AnonCoward42 3y ago
> What difference you mean, aside from the lack of a regulatory framework, pseudonymity (and paradoxically, lack of privacy), lack of recourse in the face of user error, and custodial issues? Is anonymity the issue? Cash is anonymous, but you also say that crypto is not private, which makes it now good or bad in your eyes? The opportunity for recourse has nothing to do with a currency. A currency cannot give you recourse in the face of user error (or basically any). Neither fiat can do that nor crypto can. > The "not your keys not your coins" take is hilariously dumb in light of how much "value" has evaporated in personal custodial failure. Do you want to tell me this cannot happen with fiat? The (partly rhetorical) question also aims at both sides custodial and non-custodial fiat. > The currency and its supporting infrastructure has everything to do with it, and crypto fails basic litmus tests to even attempt to go mainstream. What exactly does it fail? edit: replace one "it" with "crypto" to remove ambiguity.
- ninepoints 3y ago
  Having every transaction recorded in a public append only but otherwise immutable ledger does not afford the privacy choice you have with fiat. People using fiat are not losing their life savings when they forget their bank passwords, nor are they sending money to the wrong address and losing money irrecoverably.
  - AnonCoward42 3y ago
    > Having every transaction recorded in a public append only but otherwise immutable ledger does not afford the privacy choice you have with fiat. This would be good or bad for scams? For me this sounds worse for scams. Regarding choice: You could use Monero/XMR if you want to use it like (fungible,mostly anonymous) cash. > People using fiat are not losing their life savings when they forget their bank passwords, [...] This is not a like for like comparison. If you forget your wallet somewhere, your money is potentially gone as well. On the other hand if you have your crypto in a bank (custodial), it is the exact same as fiat (with the same caveats). > [...] nor are they sending money to the wrong address and losing money irrecoverably. This is maybe the only part that is really different here. Fiat doesn't have the capability to "send" at all, but banks have. The non-custodial part about crypto has the property of higher responsibility. If you have it somewhere custodial you could have the same properties as with fiat (properties not inherent to the currency).

AnonCoward42 3y ago

> What difference you mean, aside from the lack of a regulatory framework, pseudonymity (and paradoxically, lack of privacy), lack of recourse in the face of user error, and custodial issues? Is anonymity the issue? Cash is anonymous, but you also say that crypto is not private, which makes it now good or bad in your eyes? The opportunity for recourse has nothing to do with a currency. A currency cannot give you recourse in the face of user error (or basically any). Neither fiat can do that nor crypto can. > The "not your keys not your coins" take is hilariously dumb in light of how much "value" has evaporated in personal custodial failure. Do you want to tell me this cannot happen with fiat? The (partly rhetorical) question also aims at both sides custodial and non-custodial fiat. > The currency and its supporting infrastructure has everything to do with it, and crypto fails basic litmus tests to even attempt to go mainstream. What exactly does it fail? edit: replace one "it" with "crypto" to remove ambiguity.

ninepoints 3y ago
Having every transaction recorded in a public append only but otherwise immutable ledger does not afford the privacy choice you have with fiat. People using fiat are not losing their life savings when they forget their bank passwords, nor are they sending money to the wrong address and losing money irrecoverably.
- AnonCoward42 3y ago
  > Having every transaction recorded in a public append only but otherwise immutable ledger does not afford the privacy choice you have with fiat. This would be good or bad for scams? For me this sounds worse for scams. Regarding choice: You could use Monero/XMR if you want to use it like (fungible,mostly anonymous) cash. > People using fiat are not losing their life savings when they forget their bank passwords, [...] This is not a like for like comparison. If you forget your wallet somewhere, your money is potentially gone as well. On the other hand if you have your crypto in a bank (custodial), it is the exact same as fiat (with the same caveats). > [...] nor are they sending money to the wrong address and losing money irrecoverably. This is maybe the only part that is really different here. Fiat doesn't have the capability to "send" at all, but banks have. The non-custodial part about crypto has the property of higher responsibility. If you have it somewhere custodial you could have the same properties as with fiat (properties not inherent to the currency).