[SilasX]

I’m talking about me wiring money to someone who was actually a scammer, same as AI said before.

If your response is “oh well you should have been more careful about that”, congratulations on endorsing the very same defense crypto enthusiasts were giving and validating that they’re not all that different.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

I reckon that the wire transfer is one of those things where you get a ton of warnings from your bank that the transaction is normally not reversible, at least it is at my bank. I think it's unfortunate that there are any legitimate transactions that require wire transfers -- I definitely am not someone who endorses the status quo here.

I guess my take is that all crypto transactions have properties strictly worse than the worst type of bank transfer. In addition to being irreversible when you initiate them, they are also irreversible if someone fraudulently initiates them on your behalf. And there is no more secure option that you can use with crypto. There is to my knowledge nothing in the crypto space with security properties similar to an ACH transfer.

[CRConrad]

Too bad for you, my sympathies. But there is still a huge difference here: Someone has your money; it didn't cease to exist. (So from the bank's viewpoint: "Our books are balanced, it went from one account to another.") In this crypto case though, the money was destroyed by the system; the "bank" "ate" it. At least that shit doesn't happen in the old Alfa Romeo banking system.

[SilasX]

Yes, there is a difference in that respect. But I was replying to the parent’t point that, because the banking system is run by humans, obviously they will fix anything for you that a human can identify as a bad result. (Like sending the money to the wrong place or to a scammer.)

It’s kind of missing the point to focus on the narrow issue of “can you accidentally destroy money in the conventional banking system?”

[CRConrad]

> It’s kind of missing the point to focus on the narrow issue of “can you accidentally destroy money in the conventional banking system?”

No it isn't. That's a huge difference. On the contrary, focusing on “Shit happens in the conventional banking system too!”, that's missing the point, IMO.

[SilasX]

It’s not really a difference because you can destroy money in the conventional banking system eg by burning paper money. And it’s extremely important if the defense you’re giving I’d wrong, which it is, if that defense is “humans can come in and correct obviously unreasonable things”.

In both conventional banking and crypto, yes, there are situations of “sorry, you’re fucked, but like, you’re just supposed to know not to do that” (where “that” is send wires you’re not 100% sure of or guard your physical cash carefully).

No offense, but you really seem to be drawing the abstraction boundaries poorly here.

[CRConrad]

> you can destroy money in the conventional banking system eg by burning paper money.

But that's an accident or intentional vandalism by a user of the system; it isn't built into the system itself.

> In both conventional banking and crypto, yes, there are situations of “sorry, you’re fucked, but like, you’re just supposed to know not to do that” (where “that” is send wires you’re not 100% sure of or guard your physical cash carefully).

In conventional banking the “sorry, you’re fucked” situations don't destroy the money banking is all about handling.

> you really seem to be drawing the abstraction boundaries poorly here.

My "abstraction boundary" (if I understand the term correctly?) is: A system that can have parts that do this -- destroy the very thing it's supposed to handle, "money" -- is a crap system. "Yeah, but you can burn cash!" (vandalism) or "Mistype an account number and the money is lost (to you)!" (not destructive) are not system critiques but whataboutism.

Currency-changing ATMs (do such things exist? If not, why not?) or vending machines like for petrol don't have built-in banknote shredders.

[Edit: Left off half a sentence, screwed up emphases.]