Not practical for ordinary people. No regular person is holding their own wallet, and even the technically sophisticated who do get their keys stolen or lose them to faulty backups or technical snafus.
Calling/implying that it's technically sophisticated is not really reasonable. Having a BTC (or other currency) wallet is utterly trivial, let alone from a technical standpoint, it's much easier than setting up an e.g. Coinbase account. The only issue, outside of choice of course, is people being ignorant of what needs to be done and I think that can largely be explained by the fact that centralized providers spend billions on marketing while decentralized wallets spend nothing on it.
The intention of bitcoin was to have a digital medium with similar properties as cash: no need to trust anyone else, and you can exchange it with whoever you want. Cash can also be stolen if someone takes your wallet, leaving you no recourse except the law
Imho Bitcoins being stolen is not at all Bitcoin being "bent, broken, or subverted", it's just a natural consequence of the design goals. If an unrelated third party could block my bitcoins by accusing me of terrorism that would be subverting the system, and such things have not happened to bitcoin-core (but have happened in other parts of the bitcoin ecosystem)
> Cash can also be stolen if someone takes your wallet, leaving you no recourse except the law
The issue that is often raised with Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies is that not even the law can help you in case of theft. Now, it's true that the police wouldn't bother helping me recover a wallet with 100€ into it, but things change if someone steals millions or even billions like in this case.
The argument for bitcoin being secure is more along the lines of "if you store your own bitcoins securely nobody can take them from you". Storing them securely is easy in principle (just keep them on an airgapped computer, or write the key down on paper, then "just" do physical security well) but hard in practice (major security-convenience tradeoffs). However, storing your bitcoins with a major provider like binance has a terrible track record and not something the hardcore bitcoin advocates actually recommend
Huh? You can trace bitcoins forever, and people would probably pay extra for some vanity bitcoins; and probably pay less or nothing for some bitcoins that are legally questionable.
Your answer does not answer anything. The discussion is about whether or not to have the trusted third-party. Pro-ttp said that ttp protects from criminals. Anti-ttp said that ttp can make your own money dissappear because ttp is bending the rules. You said nonsence, your examples are not showing any rules or contracts about digital property which are being bent. Why any bitcoin criticism from anyone is always so weak?
not bitcoin-core in the past 14 years of being a public network
Btc has a similar blacklist with tainted coins because it's not fungible unlike actual decentralized cryptocurrency like monero xmr
lol no. you can mix them over and over and it becomes a p^n complexity
The topic is bitcoin being hacked and stolen. I do not think this outcome was the intended outcome for users?
Perhaps I am missing your argument.
no. binance was hacked, again, again. the wallet was not. else they would have stolen only from the btc wallet.
not your keys not your bitcoin
Not practical for ordinary people. No regular person is holding their own wallet, and even the technically sophisticated who do get their keys stolen or lose them to faulty backups or technical snafus.
Calling/implying that it's technically sophisticated is not really reasonable. Having a BTC (or other currency) wallet is utterly trivial, let alone from a technical standpoint, it's much easier than setting up an e.g. Coinbase account. The only issue, outside of choice of course, is people being ignorant of what needs to be done and I think that can largely be explained by the fact that centralized providers spend billions on marketing while decentralized wallets spend nothing on it.
The intention of bitcoin was to have a digital medium with similar properties as cash: no need to trust anyone else, and you can exchange it with whoever you want. Cash can also be stolen if someone takes your wallet, leaving you no recourse except the law
Imho Bitcoins being stolen is not at all Bitcoin being "bent, broken, or subverted", it's just a natural consequence of the design goals. If an unrelated third party could block my bitcoins by accusing me of terrorism that would be subverting the system, and such things have not happened to bitcoin-core (but have happened in other parts of the bitcoin ecosystem)
> Cash can also be stolen if someone takes your wallet, leaving you no recourse except the law
The issue that is often raised with Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies is that not even the law can help you in case of theft. Now, it's true that the police wouldn't bother helping me recover a wallet with 100€ into it, but things change if someone steals millions or even billions like in this case.
You steal billions, you just pay the police 100000000 to look away.
Ok, so you are saying this is business as usual, and the theft is exactly what one should expect, as with any other store of value.
I find something odd about this, because it seems to contradict some of what I understand of the arguments for bitcoin.
However, there is merit to your point, and if something is working as intended, then nothing was attacked in the first place.
The argument for bitcoin being secure is more along the lines of "if you store your own bitcoins securely nobody can take them from you". Storing them securely is easy in principle (just keep them on an airgapped computer, or write the key down on paper, then "just" do physical security well) but hard in practice (major security-convenience tradeoffs). However, storing your bitcoins with a major provider like binance has a terrible track record and not something the hardcore bitcoin advocates actually recommend
Huh? You can trace bitcoins forever, and people would probably pay extra for some vanity bitcoins; and probably pay less or nothing for some bitcoins that are legally questionable.
Your answer does not answer anything. The discussion is about whether or not to have the trusted third-party. Pro-ttp said that ttp protects from criminals. Anti-ttp said that ttp can make your own money dissappear because ttp is bending the rules. You said nonsence, your examples are not showing any rules or contracts about digital property which are being bent. Why any bitcoin criticism from anyone is always so weak?
All bitcoins are legally questionable; but no: ones that can be traced to contract killings not just stealing do not trade at a discount.