upvote

points

by designerarvid5 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby rubzah1 hours ago|
next
[-]
Isn't the centralization the reason they got stolen? It was Binance that was hacked, not the blockchain technology.
reply
upvoteby GreenLightGo39 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
By the way, it wasn't just Binance that got hacked. Several other exchanges were hit too.
reply
upvoteby GoblinSlayer29 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
A supply chain attack? Do all these exchanges routinely import new cryptocurrencies?
reply
upvoteby redwood1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Well in traditional banking you essentially have the ability to reverse
reply
upvoteby KellyCriterion1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
True, but it gets complicated or even impossible if you try to do across international/fragmented transfers & countries.
reply
upvoteby nicman235 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
yeah the issue is if you built it they will co opt it
reply
upvoteby intended4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
All systems can be bent, broken, or subverted.
reply
upvoteby nicman234 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
not bitcoin-core in the past 14 years of being a public network
reply
upvoteby akimbostrawman2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Btc has a similar blacklist with tainted coins because it's not fungible unlike actual decentralized cryptocurrency like monero xmr
reply
upvoteby nicman2321 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
lol no. you can mix them over and over and it becomes a p^n complexity
reply
upvoteby intended4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The topic is bitcoin being hacked and stolen. I do not think this outcome was the intended outcome for users?

Perhaps I am missing your argument.

reply
upvoteby nicman233 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
no. binance was hacked, again, again. the wallet was not. else they would have stolen only from the btc wallet.

not your keys not your bitcoin

reply
upvoteby rwmj2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Not practical for ordinary people. No regular person is holding their own wallet, and even the technically sophisticated who do get their keys stolen or lose them to faulty backups or technical snafus.
reply
upvoteby somenameforme2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Calling/implying that it's technically sophisticated is not really reasonable. Having a BTC (or other currency) wallet is utterly trivial, let alone from a technical standpoint, it's much easier than setting up an e.g. Coinbase account. The only issue, outside of choice of course, is people being ignorant of what needs to be done and I think that can largely be explained by the fact that centralized providers spend billions on marketing while decentralized wallets spend nothing on it.
reply
upvoteby 3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby wongarsu3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The intention of bitcoin was to have a digital medium with similar properties as cash: no need to trust anyone else, and you can exchange it with whoever you want. Cash can also be stolen if someone takes your wallet, leaving you no recourse except the law

Imho Bitcoins being stolen is not at all Bitcoin being "bent, broken, or subverted", it's just a natural consequence of the design goals. If an unrelated third party could block my bitcoins by accusing me of terrorism that would be subverting the system, and such things have not happened to bitcoin-core (but have happened in other parts of the bitcoin ecosystem)

reply
upvoteby GTP2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> Cash can also be stolen if someone takes your wallet, leaving you no recourse except the law

The issue that is often raised with Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies is that not even the law can help you in case of theft. Now, it's true that the police wouldn't bother helping me recover a wallet with 100€ into it, but things change if someone steals millions or even billions like in this case.

reply
upvoteby GoblinSlayer2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You steal billions, you just pay the police 100000000 to look away.
reply
upvoteby intended1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Ok, so you are saying this is business as usual, and the theft is exactly what one should expect, as with any other store of value.

I find something odd about this, because it seems to contradict some of what I understand of the arguments for bitcoin.

However, there is merit to your point, and if something is working as intended, then nothing was attacked in the first place.

reply
upvoteby wongarsu1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The argument for bitcoin being secure is more along the lines of "if you store your own bitcoins securely nobody can take them from you". Storing them securely is easy in principle (just keep them on an airgapped computer, or write the key down on paper, then "just" do physical security well) but hard in practice (major security-convenience tradeoffs). However, storing your bitcoins with a major provider like binance has a terrible track record and not something the hardcore bitcoin advocates actually recommend
reply
upvoteby eru4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Huh? You can trace bitcoins forever, and people would probably pay extra for some vanity bitcoins; and probably pay less or nothing for some bitcoins that are legally questionable.
reply
upvoteby eimrine4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Your answer does not answer anything. The discussion is about whether or not to have the trusted third-party. Pro-ttp said that ttp protects from criminals. Anti-ttp said that ttp can make your own money dissappear because ttp is bending the rules. You said nonsence, your examples are not showing any rules or contracts about digital property which are being bent. Why any bitcoin criticism from anyone is always so weak?
reply
upvoteby ZiiS3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
All bitcoins are legally questionable; but no: ones that can be traced to contract killings not just stealing do not trade at a discount.
reply
upvoteby otabdeveloper45 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Turns out the reason crypto was invented isn't "decentralization" at all, it was nerds feeling left out and wanting their own financial instrument grift.
reply
upvoteby raverbashing4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You mean the smart nerds

For the less economical-savvy ones it was like Beanie Babies or Tulips (with predictable consequences)

reply
upvoteby runj__4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I still buy tulips, just not at boom market prices.

The predictable outcome is that the deers get to them, but I got to see a few go into full bloom last year and it was wonderful.

reply
upvoteby diego_sandoval4 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Yes, but there are more good reasons to have it be decentralized.
reply
upvoteby Cthulhu_4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Well sure, but the average consumer needs and/or wants some protections, safeguards and insurances. If my bank gets hacked or even if I get skimmed it's considered their fault and I'll get my money back.
reply
upvoteby GoblinSlayer3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
>I'll get my money back.

If the police retrieves your money from the thief?

reply
upvoteby necovek2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That's if it was stolen from you directly.

If it's stolen from a bank, it's their obligation to recuperate you.

FWIW, most countries have a type of insurance if a legally operating bank goes under, at least some of your savings are protected (eg. in Serbia that's up to 50kEUR).

reply
upvoteby EliRivers3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
While I can't speak for other places, in the UK, if you haven't been careless and report quickly enough, your refund is not dependent on anyone being caught.
reply