|
|
|
|
|
|
by 0xDEFC0DE
2459 days ago
|
|
|
Locking down accounts you control on your infrastructure is vastly easier to scale than asset forfeiture. Scale and ease does matter here. >I have never seen an argument against crypto currency that doesn't already apply to the current systems, we just pretend its not the same. It's not the same: cryptocurrencies are generally more restrictive about reversing transactions (in that you can't), for instance. We can reverse some transactions in the current system. Some call this a feature, but they're likely okay with every day people getting their shit stolen easily because they don't know anything about computer security. |
|
|
It's a middleman or escrow who performs this service. Credit Cards and banks act as the middlemen to reverse transactions. No reason cryptos can't have those too. I imagine Uphold or Coinbase or whoever can serve this function.
as far as people being thieved I would agree that it is important to shore up computer security. Physical wallets and stashes of cash also are stolen when security is lax. Again, a middleman might play a role to secure, just as banks do for USD/EUR /etc. Giving money to a bank is essentially delegating the protection of your savings. The alternative being a home safe or under a mattress where the security remains the holder's responsibility.