[thebean11]

It's not a deficit because everyday users can use a service that handles private keys for them. Managing private keys and signing transactions is not the level of the tech stack that nontechnical folks were ever meant to be on.

It's like complaining that REST APIs aren't user friendly.

My point is for someone who understand how keys work a bit better (like a lot of people here) there are better ways to set things up.

[athrun]

If you use a service that handles your private keys and the service gets compromised, then your funds are gone, permanently.

This is a very different risk proposition compared to trusting a bank. If the bank gets compromised, it's the bank's problem, not mine.

[lottin]

Yes, the crypto people got a lot of things wrong. One is the idea that you have to trust banks. You don't. There's a whole system in place that protects us from banks, or anybody else, behaving badly. It's called 'civilisation'.

[hoseja]

I'm afraid you've been led to believe the wrong way of who "civilisation" protects from whom.

[lottin]

You think society was invented by banks to protect themselves from the ordinary man?

[toolz]

Do you think bank insurance is free? You seem to think crypto can't have insurance or maybe that it'll be costly while ignoring that bank insurance is something you are paying for. It's not free and the bank isn't doing you a favor.

[thebean11]

Sure that's the point. Individuals can make a judgement call over who they think is least likely to lose their keys, themselves or Coinbase. Many of those crypto "banks" are insured.