4 ms·
The web of trust that we have built is the best we could do in the past. But now we would have technology to get rid of all the headaches it creates. On a bloc
by ArtTimeInvestor 2y ago
The web of trust that we have built is the best we could do in the past. But now we would have technology to get rid of all the headaches it creates.
On a blockchain, we could have a contract that says "To move more than $X of my money per week, I need to agree by signing with my private key.".
So the bank can only mess up $X per week. And if I lose my private key, I still can get the money out in chunks of $X per week.
- namdnay 2y ago> And if I lose my private key, I still can get the money out in chunks of $X per week So the 5% of people every year who are going to lose their private key can no longer buy a house or car for the rest of their life?
- ArtTimeInvestor 2y agoThe bank can still send $X per week to wherever it wants. So if one loses their key, they would tell the bank to transfer the money in amounts of $X per week to a new account. If they have set $X to 2% of their savings, they would have to wait 50 weeks until they can use the full sum again.
- lmz 2y agoWell they can trickle their money to a new account and use that new account for the ~10 yrs until they lose their key again.
- evanb 2y agoMy non-blockchain bank already puts such a limit (amount electronically transferred per day). If you need to move more than that you've got to do more than just use the website.
- ArtTimeInvestor 2y agoThat does not protect you from incompetence or malice of the bank. Your bank is still a single point of failure. In the article, the bank claims: Someone had actually come into the bank and spoken to a teller, presented a driver’s license, and then correctly answered some authentication questions to validate the account. The bank does not claim that someone just "used the website".