4 ms·
And to add insult to injury, not only is the UX bad, there is no rate limiting that happens like with normal banking, where alarm bells start ringing the minute
by WallyFunk 3y ago
And to add insult to injury, not only is the UX bad, there is no rate limiting that happens like with normal banking, where alarm bells start ringing the minute large transactions are being made.
And banks can reverse fraudulent transactions, whereas with crypto there is the 'code is law' thing and once it's set in stone on the blockchain, there is no going back.
Also since modern computing is so leaky and insecure, crypto is being rampantly stolen all over the place. You could say the same about computing for banks, but the rate limiting, KYC, and anti-fraud measures are way ahead of crypto.
- confoundcofound 3y agoI have talked to people in the space exactly about this and have been accused of "boomer mentality" as a dude in his 30s. The industry seems to be run by "move fast, break things" idealists who don't understand that they're playing with others people's hard-earned money and that things breaking may have serious implications. They think sending out a tweet alerting users of a scam is an adequate anti-fraud solution.
- pavel_lishin 3y ago> And banks can reverse fraudulent transactions, whereas with crypto there is the 'code is law' thing and once it's set in stone on the blockchain, there is no going back. Well, that's only mostly true - chains have forked to avoid this very issue, as we saw with the DAO. Which one of these is the greater crime or drawback will depend on who you ask!