Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lostmsu 871 days ago
IMHO, you don't quite understand what you are talking about. Your centralized requirement is entirely bogus. If participants wish so, they could use any of the cryptos to run a subnet with an external oracle/moderator. Or even just build moderation right into smart contracts.
1 comments
solardev 871 days ago
Why? I don't want a bunch of small operators independently moderating, or hope for a bug free implementation of a smart contract. The whole point is regulatory instead of technical protection. I don't want code to supercede the laws that exist to protect us.

I especially don't want my finances under the care of the kinds of companies and opportunistic individuals normally drawn to crypto. One mistake and everything is gone. That's only a plus if you're a cyber libertarian. I would much sooner trust a reputable brand or government.

link
dns_snek 871 days ago
> One mistake and everything is gone.

What do you mean? You could lose 1 transaction if the merchant turns out to be a scammer and there was no escrow involved, same as cash.

link
solardev 870 days ago
"Same as cash" is part of the problem here. Credit cards offer way more protection. I don't want to give cash-equivalent to somebody I've never done business with, unless it's a physical good I can immediately examine in person and take possession of.

But really I meant more user error, like getting phished or hacked out of a wallet, a mistake in coding up a smart contract, a mistake in choosing which third-party moderator or online exchange to trust, etc. Every step of the way is fraught with risk. The same crypto opportunities that opportunists get rich on seem to be built on other people's misfortunes. It's a zero-sum game.

link