undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTimeBearingDown2y ago0 comments

No, this is usually (apologies if not in your case) a straw man, and representative of the usual HN blind spot for cryptocurrency. Ledger and Trezor hardware wallets do protect against this class of attack. We are rapidly approaching a world in which those with significant assets or job responsibilities should be carrying physical 2FA tokens, which can allow use of private keys while protecting them (a hardware wallet).

This is more of the same. The base rule in crypto has always been “not your keys, not your coins” and to keep your recovery seed offline and only enter it with the utmost of caution.

The history of scams is long, requiring periods of societal learning and transition as e.g. credit card, identity fraud, and wire fraud have taken center stage.

Private keys will be something that a certain amount of the population will eventually be required to understand in my estimation, even if simplified as much as can be. The alternative is more middle ground solutions putting ultimate trust in a separate party managing the keys.

There isn’t much use for most first world citizens in maintaining direct control over their digital wealth, so they are best served by staying away or dollar cost averaging a small percentage of their portfolio into an offline wallet. Those who want to experiment with smart contracts can do so with much smaller amounts.

The ability to memorize 12 words and have direct ownership of your wealth anywhere with an Internet connection, independent of any party save those facilitating the network and the one accepting your payment, and the ability to cross a border or transfer to the other side of the globe without seizure, is already tremendously powerful to hundreds of millions of people who lack trustworthy financial services.

0 comments

lottin2y ago

> The base rule in crypto has always been “not your keys, not your coins”

This is because blockchains have no way of enforcing laws, including property rights. Therefore it comes down to this. Imagine that whoever got hold of your car keys, automatically became the owner. This is what "not your keys, not your coins" means.

joncrocks2y ago

It's a bit more like 'possession is 9/10 of the law'.

The "not your keys, not your coins" is more the fact that someone else holding your stuff happen to them and your stuff goes away. Or they never had it to start with. i.e. Counterparty risk.

`Cash` doesn't inherently have any mechanism for enforcing rights either. The difference is that real-world identities are easier to establish in situations where cash transactions go awry.

lottin2y ago

Indeed, physical cash has similar limitations. Everybody understands that it's inherently unsafe. Yet crypto-currency advocates are advising people to keep a large part of their savings as an asset that's even less safe than physical currency, which is absolutely crazy.

FireBeyond2y ago

> It's a bit more like 'possession is 9/10 of the law'.

Common mistake. The original saying was "Possession is nine points of the law". Over time it's been bastardized to "nine-tenths".

TimeBearingDownOP2y ago

“Enforcing laws” with regard to what? Censoring transactions? Freezing accounts?

If people want a system where this as well as excessive inflation are close to impossible, they now have an option, with the clear caveat of that ownership.

It’s not like there aren’t other options to choose - custodial services and multi-signature wallets. Banks are custodial services too, and that’s fine.

troupo2y ago

> “Enforcing laws” with regard to what? Censoring transactions? Freezing accounts?

Fraud. Transaction rollbacks. Consumer protection laws.

TimeBearingDownOP2y ago

Those should be applied at a higher layer than the base one, and the vast majority of people should be using custodial services if they have access.

A much smaller fraction should be using open source and audited hardware wallets as well as offline paper wallets.

People will have the option to shoot their foot off with real, direct control, yes. That option or ‘genie’ doesn’t go back in the bottle, not permanently.

lottin2y ago

If you want lawlessness go ahead, but don't come crying when someone steals your riches or punches you in the face.

TimeBearingDownOP2y ago

Yes. The option now exists to have private digital means of exchange, free from direct government devaluation. There are absolutely drawbacks; it is not for everyone.

mschuster912y ago

> The history of scams is long, requiring periods of societal learning and transition as e.g. credit card, identity fraud, and wire fraud have taken center stage.

And governments have enacted laws to protect people. With cryptocurrencies, they - by definition - cannot. Once you got scammed, your money is all but gone (sans a very VERY few exceptions).

> The ability to memorize 12 words and have direct ownership of your wealth anywhere with an Internet connection, independent of any party save those facilitating the network and the one accepting your payment, and the ability to cross a border or transfer to the other side of the globe without seizure, is already tremendously powerful to hundreds of millions of people who lack trustworthy financial services.

That's a societal problem, it can only be solved by society, not by cryptocurrency peddlers and tech-bros. And in any case: at some point that "wealth" has to enter the real world, and it's there that governments can step in and seize said wealth.

ericd2y ago

>That's a societal problem, it can only be solved by society, not by cryptocurrency peddlers and tech-bros. And in any case: at some point that "wealth" has to enter the real world, and it's there that governments can step in and seize said wealth.

People escaping oppressive regimes don't have time for their society to solve it, they need to leave to a different, less messed-up society. And this is one of the few ways that they can bring a decent fraction of their assets with them in a form that's not very easily stolen from them.

TimeBearingDownOP2y ago

> And governments have enacted laws to protect people. With cryptocurrencies, they - by definition - cannot. Once you got scammed, your money is all but gone (sans a very VERY few exceptions).

Rollbacks being impossible doesn’t mean the government cannot legislate.

This is a double edged sword - the benefit and the drawback are inextricably linked. Caveat emptor. Do you want absolute control of your funds? If so, you can memorize 12 words and travel the globe. If not, look to custodial partners, ETFs, or multi-signature wallets.

> That's a societal problem, it can only be solved by society, not by cryptocurrency peddlers and tech-bros. And in any case: at some point that "wealth" has to enter the real world, and it's there that governments can step in and seize said wealth.

What? I assume by “this” you mean people who don’t have quality trustworthy financial institutions?

This is Hacker News. We brainstorm technological solutions to real world problems all the time. This particular problem can only be solved be “society” at large, not technology, because you say so?

You want to disparage those trying as “tech-bro peddlers” - do you simply mean any technology inclined entrepreneur who doesn’t present female? This is an absurd emotional invective.

I’d bring up Monero RingCTs and stealth addresses as an intermediate step and the offramp of direct purchases which that community has been building, as well as tools like Bisq, but I doubt the utility of continuing to reply.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

lottin2y ago

> The base rule in crypto has always been “not your keys, not your coins”

joncrocks2y ago

It's a bit more like 'possession is 9/10 of the law'.

The "not your keys, not your coins" is more the fact that someone else holding your stuff happen to them and your stuff goes away. Or they never had it to start with. i.e. Counterparty risk.

`Cash` doesn't inherently have any mechanism for enforcing rights either. The difference is that real-world identities are easier to establish in situations where cash transactions go awry.

lottin2y ago

FireBeyond2y ago

> It's a bit more like 'possession is 9/10 of the law'.

Common mistake. The original saying was "Possession is nine points of the law". Over time it's been bastardized to "nine-tenths".

TimeBearingDownOP2y ago

“Enforcing laws” with regard to what? Censoring transactions? Freezing accounts?

If people want a system where this as well as excessive inflation are close to impossible, they now have an option, with the clear caveat of that ownership.

It’s not like there aren’t other options to choose - custodial services and multi-signature wallets. Banks are custodial services too, and that’s fine.

troupo2y ago

> “Enforcing laws” with regard to what? Censoring transactions? Freezing accounts?

Fraud. Transaction rollbacks. Consumer protection laws.

TimeBearingDownOP2y ago

Those should be applied at a higher layer than the base one, and the vast majority of people should be using custodial services if they have access.

A much smaller fraction should be using open source and audited hardware wallets as well as offline paper wallets.

People will have the option to shoot their foot off with real, direct control, yes. That option or ‘genie’ doesn’t go back in the bottle, not permanently.

lottin2y ago

If you want lawlessness go ahead, but don't come crying when someone steals your riches or punches you in the face.

TimeBearingDownOP2y ago

Yes. The option now exists to have private digital means of exchange, free from direct government devaluation. There are absolutely drawbacks; it is not for everyone.

mschuster912y ago

> The history of scams is long, requiring periods of societal learning and transition as e.g. credit card, identity fraud, and wire fraud have taken center stage.

And governments have enacted laws to protect people. With cryptocurrencies, they - by definition - cannot. Once you got scammed, your money is all but gone (sans a very VERY few exceptions).

ericd2y ago

TimeBearingDownOP2y ago

> And governments have enacted laws to protect people. With cryptocurrencies, they - by definition - cannot. Once you got scammed, your money is all but gone (sans a very VERY few exceptions).

Rollbacks being impossible doesn’t mean the government cannot legislate.

> That's a societal problem, it can only be solved by society, not by cryptocurrency peddlers and tech-bros. And in any case: at some point that "wealth" has to enter the real world, and it's there that governments can step in and seize said wealth.

What? I assume by “this” you mean people who don’t have quality trustworthy financial institutions?

You want to disparage those trying as “tech-bro peddlers” - do you simply mean any technology inclined entrepreneur who doesn’t present female? This is an absurd emotional invective.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse