12/29/2025 at 10:02:11 PM
I love the concept of cryptocoins. But in practice, there are some enormous hazards that make it not worthwhile IMO. This is just one such hazard, but by now we've seen several flavors of "this custody/storage mechanism failed to securely store some wealth." If securing it yourself, it's so easy to mishandle and either destroy your wealth or have it stolen. If delegating it to an "expert" you risk the custodial agent falling victim to theft/exit scam/ineptitude. Does any third party insure these agents?Having a government-insured bank deposit means that I've never had to think about this in my lifetime. It's a problem that I don't need.
by wyldfire
12/30/2025 at 12:53:42 AM
> Having a government-insured bank deposit means that I've never had to think about this in my lifetimeI think "in my lifetime" is the key here. Probably banks weren't as foolproof initially as they are today, and was a bit wild west too in the beginning.
With that said, I do think cryptocurrencies are still in a "exploring" phase and it's been way oversold on what it could help solve, especially by people who are looking to make a quick buck. Which is a shame, because the technology itself does have useful applications.
by embedding-shape
12/29/2025 at 11:38:56 PM
Sort of a double edged sword there. A big part of the appeal of crypto money is that there is no "centralized daddy." The upside is that your property can't be confiscated by "centralized daddy." The downside is you can lose your keys.People who do not understand that trade-off have no business buying crypto.
by game_the0ry
12/30/2025 at 12:10:10 AM
> The upside is that your property can't be confiscated by "centralized daddy."Really? Most crypto is not anonymous, it is at best pseudonymous. If a big enough government agency wants your crypto, they will get it.
by simonebrunozzi
12/30/2025 at 2:15:07 PM
It can be totally anonymous if you can use a non-KYC exchange way of acquiring it. And then again, you can buy monero or zcash, then buy bitcoin again. I could start up a new open source wallet on an air gapped machine, go to a local bitcoin meetup, and buy bitcoin for cash.by game_the0ry
12/30/2025 at 4:24:18 AM
Yes, and a motivated man with a heavy wrench could take it too. That doesn't mean that permissionless currency isn't valuable. It just means that my threats have been reduced from nanny took my money and man with wrench to just man with wrench.by idiotsecant
12/29/2025 at 10:42:11 PM
> Having a government-insured bank deposit means that I've never had to think about this in my lifetime. It's a problem that I don't need.Government-insured bank deposits are mostly BS, the fine prints say they have about 10 years to reimburse you and in case of a systemic failure good luck.
In case the bank app, their "system" or your computer is compromised most banks will not reimburse you. It is very easy for them to say you were ultimately responsible for the hack. Very few banks have the policy of taking the loss and it is hard to know which one still do that unless you know someone in their fraud department.
by sunshine-o
12/29/2025 at 11:04:15 PM
I was a victim of bank fraud a couple of years ago. My bank was totally at fault (I caught it, not them) and they reimbursed me in full.From what I understand, government insurance goes more towards bank failure, not fraud.
by citiguy
12/29/2025 at 11:11:17 PM
even if that's the case re: government insured banks.... Maybe it feels more secure because there is someone to hold accountable if/when it all falls apart. People can show up in DC with pitch forks and vent their frustration; good luck tracking the stateless billionaires behind a company like Binance through Micronesia/the Caribbean/Seychelles/whatever island paradise they stashed their cash on.by m4ck_
12/30/2025 at 4:25:39 AM
That is exactly why you don't give those stateless billionaires your keys.Not your keys, not your money. Crypto that requires trust is not crypto.
by idiotsecant
12/29/2025 at 11:59:10 PM
I believe cryptocurrencies are an in-vitro experiment on free market ideologies and that's why people are so split on them.I think of them as primarily an ideological technology, designed to establish the primacy of free market capitalism over any sovereign law.
I think that is why people still hold onto them, despite nothing but scams coming out of them so far.
As somebody who doesn't think unrestrained free markets are a good idea, it feels like the capitalist monkey paw: Finally, there's completely unrestrained uncensorable money. Unfortunately, the result of that is what every advocate of regulation would've told you: Nothing but scams.
Ironically, the phrase capitalists use to describe why socialism can't work - "doesn't account for human nature" - has been proven to apply to their preferred ideology.
They got what they wanted and turns out it sucks. The technology that was supposed to establish the primacy of their world view ended up disproving it instead, plunging them into ideological crisis.
They have no choice but to double down despite ever more evidence of free market failure. There's a certain ideological cost sunk fallacy going on - to admit error and change ones ideological framework completely would be too painful, so they keep waiting for redemption.
Just my grain of salt as a socialist.
by saubeidl
12/30/2025 at 12:00:48 PM
>despite nothing but scams coming out of them so far.Well that's simply not true. Next year, it'll have been 15 years since I first bought LSD on Silk Road using bitcoin.
by monerozcash