Hacker News Reader

Comment by 300bps | Hacker News Reader

The example I used protects the user from all these scenarios you mentioned.

How does it protect against hardware failure? How does it protect against sending Coin X to a wallet meant for Coin Y?

Also, the US doesn't care about moving USD in and out of most countries

That's funny. And even if what you said were true, other countries will eventually control what appears to not be controllable today.

View on HN

Your Bitcoin lives on the ledger. You can recover your wallet with your private keys under most circumstances (unless the Bitcoin network itself dies). Hardware failure is not relevant.

As far as the addresses goes, it’s the same thing as sending a wire transfer to the wrong account in a different country. You won’t get it back.

How many people make international wire transfers? It's an extremely rare and risky kind of transaction, which is why banks have built up their own opsec around it.

If cryptocurrency enthusiasts had their way, though, the high-risk transaction the GP called out would be required to buy a gallon of milk.

My man, not even the wildest Bitcoin maxi is calling for a world where you are required to buy milk with bitcoin lol. People just want their savings accounts to match inflation. (and the option to spend from that savings account for some transactions).

Give them that and Bitcoin will go back to being a niche investment vehicle where 99% of the people don't care about it.

Hardware failure is extremely relevant if that hardware is the drive you store your private key on,at which point the wallet is gone forever. One could say "don't do that, have elaborate backup strategies" but that brings us back to UX. Even professionals who should know better tend to be awful at this.

I have no problems with this. Like I said in the original comment, people not wanting to run their bank is a solvable UX problem. Fundamentally, I don't see why it has to stay this way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com