[electic]

This isn't crypto. This is a centralized exchange with a centralized website, with centralized databases, that is run and controlled by humans. In fact, if you use a centralized exchange there is no use of blockchain for the most part.

There's a literal saying, "Not your keys, not your coins". Only if people would listen.

[bmitc]

> There's a literal saying, "Not your keys, not your coins".

Doesn't that also legitimatize a hack then? If someone hacks or steals your keys, you can't then turn around and say "but wait, those aren't your keys".

[jamesknelson]

Yes, it does, but some of us actually consider this to be a feature.

The issue with reversibility is that it’s not just reversibility - it’s also the power for the authorities to take your assets from you.

The question isn’t “do you want to be able to get your money back after it was stolen”, it’s really, “do you want the powers that be to be able to decide whose money it is.” We’ve been lucky to live in a world where “yes” is a reasonable answer. But there’s no guarantee that it’ll stay that way. And crypto is insurance against that possible change.

[RandomLensman]

In what way is crypto an insurance there? Typically, ruthless regimes are good at separating you from your assets. I don't see any of the typical methods not working with crypto. It's really only an insurance against marginally bad situations and there lots of other things work equally well.

[lottin]

To be clear, "crypto" is just a book that says these individuals own however many tokens. It doesn't guarantee that anyone will abide by what the books says. It doesn't guarantee that nobody will take your real wealth from you by force.

[redox99]

Crypto obviously has its disadvantages, hacks being one. There could be major UX improvements to crypto that would aid in reducing hacks and increasing security.

But either way, it's a tradeoff and that's fine. TradFi is reversible and centralized, crypto is not. Sometimes you want one thing, sometimes you want the other.

I like having part of my assets in a way that can't be frozen, like the people that protested in Canada whose banks accounts were frozen.

[LilBytes]

The exchange is a component of crypto, as an industry. Imagine defending social media but shitting on Facebook. To use your words to try and make your argument:

This isn't social media. This is Facebook with a centralized website, with centralized databases, that is run and controlled by humans. In fact, if you use a Facebook there is no use of social media for the most part.

There's a literal saying, "not paying for it, you're the proruct". Only if people would listen.

[irusensei]

> Imagine defending social media but shitting on Facebook.

I see no contradiction on shitting on facebook while defending say Mastodon. In fact people were doing this with twitter just a few days ago before $current_thing happened.

[LilBytes]

Mastodon isn't an argument that social media isn't terrible.

The same argument can't be made for crypto exchanges and the industry they occupy also being terrible.

[Thorrez]

You're right that a lot of the risks are due to holding in a central website. But cryptocurrency in a central website is more risky than fiat in a central website, because if a central website gets hacked and the hackers steal fiat, generally those transactions will be reversed, whereas if the hackers steal cryptocurrency, generally those can't be reversed.

[peyton]

What do you mean by stealing fiat currency from a central website? How would a website custody fiat?

[Thorrez]

I do an electronic transfer from bank A to bank B. I have a balance in bank B. Bank B then gets hacked.

[polygamous_bat]

Paypal?