3 ms·

Except for the non-zero possibility it could make the difference between you being murdered during a home invasion, or not.

• mpyne 13y ago
  Last time a politician was worried about non-zero probabilities, the U.S. invaded Iraq. I mean, if changing the probability someone's home gets broken into is our standard of practice nowadays there's a lot of companies which will have to close down today.
  • genwin 13y ago
    I reckon non-anonymous bitcoin holders are at greater risk than the average person with money in the bank, since draining the account of the former is a relative cinch once the keys are divulged. The whole crime could be completed within a few minutes.
    • mpyne 13y ago
      That much may be true, but I'd consider that an inherent risk associated with using Bitcoin without using a pseudonym. Maybe I'm naïve but I have to assume people who care about such things are already tracking IP addresses directly from the Bitcoin network swarm itself for later investigation...
      • genwin 13y ago
        Likely Coinbase customers expected Coinbase to keep their real name secure from potential thieves. But they thought wrongly.