4 ms·

Related proposed legislation that would explicitly shield app stores (and wallet developers) from any liability related to such wallets: https://saveourwallets.

Related proposed legislation that would explicitly shield app stores (and wallet developers) from any liability related to such wallets: https://saveourwallets.org/ https://saveourwallets.org/ https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3633/text#toc-H5A6FB06314744BA0B5F5FC1ADFDD6ED3 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3633...

Analemma_ 1y ago
This looks like a bill releasing providers from any liability if they fuck up and lose all my money via engineering incompetence. Which they probably will, because history has repeatedly shown that crypto is total amateur hour. No thanks. I'll be calling my rep to urge them to vote against this.
- ronsor 1y ago
  The point of non-custodial wallets is that the developer does not have your private keys, so they don't control your funds. While it's possible for the software to have bugs, remember that almost all software is already provided AS IS WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, and that in no event with the authors be liable for any damages arising out of or related to its use.
  - OutOfHere 1y ago
    While that's true, even non-custodial wallet providers get a commission from swap providers, some of which steal money altogether. As per Reddit, an example of such a scamming swapper is Exolix. This makes it a responsibility of the wallet to not collude with scammers.
  - Analemma_ 1y ago
    You're eliding the difference between software and a provider of financial services. My bank is absolutely liable if they fuck up and lose my money, and crypto entities should be as well.
    - ronsor 1y ago
      Yes, but a non-custodial wallet isn't anything resembling a bank. What you're arguing is basically that a (traditional) wallet manufacturer should be liable if you misplace your wallet and have all your cash stolen.
      - kube-system 1y ago
        That's only because you losing a physical wallet is your own negligence and not the negligence of the manufacturer. Not because there is no possible way that a digital wallet manufacturer couldn't lose your money due to their own negligence (or even malice).
      - makeitdouble 1y ago
        > a (traditional) wallet manufacturer should be liable if - the wallet spontaneously burns and the money ends in ashes - the wallet cannot be ever opened again and the cash within it sealed out of reach - the bills are tainted by poisonous substance sipping from the internal lining making them hazardeous to use That's kind of an interesting exercice, I think we can all come up with a few dozens of cases where a traditional wallet manufacturer would be liable because of technical or regulation issues.
  - kube-system 1y ago
    Warranty disclaimers can only disclaim warranty as far as the law otherwise allows.
- logicchains 1y ago
  >releasing providers from any liability if they fuck up and lose all my money via engineering incompetence If someone fucks up and downloads some shady wallet app that steals their coins, they're the one at fault. How about trying to take some personal responsibility, instead of trying to get the full force of government to stop other people keeping custody of their own coins, just to protect yourself from potentially making a bad decision and installing a dodgy app? Edited to remove a personal attack
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    It's kind of like when you fuck up and hire the wrong plumber and he tells his burglar friend about your huge TV and they break in to steal it a week later. That's your own fault, stop trying to get the government involved! Sheesh, I just don't understand why simple libertarian principles like this get people confused.
    - logicchains 1y ago
      >It's kind of like when you fuck up and hire the wrong plumber and he tells his burglar friend about your huge TV and they break in to steal it a week later. That's your own fault, stop trying to get the government involved! Sheesh, I just don't understand why simple libertarian principles like this get people confused. That's a great example because the venue where the plumber posted his advertisement would not be liable for the plumber's actions.
      - wizzwizz4 1y ago
        Not even if they knew, or should reasonably have known, that the plumber was doing this?
        logicchains 1y ago
        Are you implying that any app that allows personal custody of cryptocurrency is a scam? Because that's not a reasonable assumption to make; the possibility of self-custody is one of the main arguments made for cryptocurrency.

Analemma_ 1y ago

This looks like a bill releasing providers from any liability if they fuck up and lose all my money via engineering incompetence. Which they probably will, because history has repeatedly shown that crypto is total amateur hour. No thanks. I'll be calling my rep to urge them to vote against this.

ronsor 1y ago
The point of non-custodial wallets is that the developer does not have your private keys, so they don't control your funds. While it's possible for the software to have bugs, remember that almost all software is already provided AS IS WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, and that in no event with the authors be liable for any damages arising out of or related to its use.
- OutOfHere 1y ago
  While that's true, even non-custodial wallet providers get a commission from swap providers, some of which steal money altogether. As per Reddit, an example of such a scamming swapper is Exolix. This makes it a responsibility of the wallet to not collude with scammers.
- Analemma_ 1y ago
  You're eliding the difference between software and a provider of financial services. My bank is absolutely liable if they fuck up and lose my money, and crypto entities should be as well.
  - ronsor 1y ago
    Yes, but a non-custodial wallet isn't anything resembling a bank. What you're arguing is basically that a (traditional) wallet manufacturer should be liable if you misplace your wallet and have all your cash stolen.
    - kube-system 1y ago
      That's only because you losing a physical wallet is your own negligence and not the negligence of the manufacturer. Not because there is no possible way that a digital wallet manufacturer couldn't lose your money due to their own negligence (or even malice).
    - makeitdouble 1y ago
      > a (traditional) wallet manufacturer should be liable if - the wallet spontaneously burns and the money ends in ashes - the wallet cannot be ever opened again and the cash within it sealed out of reach - the bills are tainted by poisonous substance sipping from the internal lining making them hazardeous to use That's kind of an interesting exercice, I think we can all come up with a few dozens of cases where a traditional wallet manufacturer would be liable because of technical or regulation issues.
- kube-system 1y ago
  Warranty disclaimers can only disclaim warranty as far as the law otherwise allows.
logicchains 1y ago
>releasing providers from any liability if they fuck up and lose all my money via engineering incompetence If someone fucks up and downloads some shady wallet app that steals their coins, they're the one at fault. How about trying to take some personal responsibility, instead of trying to get the full force of government to stop other people keeping custody of their own coins, just to protect yourself from potentially making a bad decision and installing a dodgy app? Edited to remove a personal attack
- lupusreal 1y ago
  It's kind of like when you fuck up and hire the wrong plumber and he tells his burglar friend about your huge TV and they break in to steal it a week later. That's your own fault, stop trying to get the government involved! Sheesh, I just don't understand why simple libertarian principles like this get people confused.
  - logicchains 1y ago
    >It's kind of like when you fuck up and hire the wrong plumber and he tells his burglar friend about your huge TV and they break in to steal it a week later. That's your own fault, stop trying to get the government involved! Sheesh, I just don't understand why simple libertarian principles like this get people confused. That's a great example because the venue where the plumber posted his advertisement would not be liable for the plumber's actions.
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      Not even if they knew, or should reasonably have known, that the plumber was doing this?
      - logicchains 1y ago
        Are you implying that any app that allows personal custody of cryptocurrency is a scam? Because that's not a reasonable assumption to make; the possibility of self-custody is one of the main arguments made for cryptocurrency.