3 ms·
I don't disagree that in a post-regulation world, people are going to have to be more cautious with their monies from a security and risk perspective. That's a
by boon 13y ago
I don't disagree that in a post-regulation world, people are going to have to be more cautious with their monies from a security and risk perspective. That's a good thing.
But a lack of regulation still doesn't make this Bitcoin's disaster. You're doing a great injustice to those of us that did lose money to assign blame to any party other than Mt. Gox.
- bunderbunder 13y ago> I don't disagree that in a post-regulation world, people are going to have to be more cautious with their monies from a security and risk perspective. That's a good thing. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Do some reading on what financial life is like for most people in a pre-regulation world. Presumably the post-regulation one wouldn't be terribly different.
- boon 13y agoNo one is forgetting history. I think those of us pointing out that Bitcoin enables perhaps less regulation is because it provides new technologies for self-regulating and self-organizing. n of m wallets, self-executing contracts, autonomous organizations, etc. are all paradigms that we've never seen before and solve some of the efficiency/regulatory problems of the past. One could imagine a world where the government doesn't regulate, it only provides guidelines that all people can use as a framework or template for the self-contracting they do with potential risk.
- kerbs 13y agoFool me once... http://flexcoin.com http://flexcoin.com So what do people have to do to "be more cautious"? If both the biggest and smallest Bitcoin exchanges are getting ransacked, then what does cautious even mean?