not your keys not your coins. nothing to see here
I still think we should legislate it, but let's be honest: Most people who lose, here, kind of deserve it, for not doing the bare minimum of research.
Shockingly, "get rich quick" schemes are a bad idea. Who would have thought? Oh, wait. Everyone.
I still think most cryptocurrencies should be highly legislated, because most adults in society are more or less children who can't be trusted around shiny objects, but we should really stop pretending the problem is with the technology. It's with the users, trying to shoehorn it into a use-case it's unsuited for (get rich quick schemes).
The context here is an exchange limiting withdrawals, so... Yes, exactly?
Decentralised exchanges have massive fees in practice. If you want to buy in and cash out after a year, sure. But show me one that takes <0.1% for the whole transaction including transfer/signing fees and supports BTC.
That said, I do know a decentralized exchange that fits your criteria. I'm not going to mention it, because I refuse to enable such incredibly harmful behavior.
Just because exchanges fail, and there are shitloads of scams, doesn't mean the underlying technology isn't super interesting and can actually grow into something amazing in a few decades.
It already happened: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident
I'll be looking with great attention to the near future.
The point is you store your crypto on a non-custodial software wallet (Metamask) or a hardware wallet (Ledger Nano) and not on an exchange, so it cannot be 'held hostage'.
It is not your keys, not your coins if it is on an exchange which uses custodial wallets, but doesn't apply if it is on a non-custodial wallet.
Your funds are spendable by your private key. Your private key is stored on Metamask, Ledger or a piece of paper.
It’s an important distinction to make. Your hardware wallet is just a custodian of your private key.
Almost every document out there talks about storing coins in your wallet. It’s actually a private key in there.
Maybe with the right language, more people might be tempted to hold their own keys and eschew centralised exchanges.
Satoshi was an excellent C++ programmer but s/he wasn't quite good at creating GUI and "Crypto" consumer apps that's why s/he open sourced it and left it to the community to build upon it and expand the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Btw at the time Bitcoin was in the experimental phase and Satoshi left the Bitcoin community pretty early that's why "Crypto" was user hostile and maybe still is.
IMO it was initially written by someone deep in government (but I have no proof, just my opinion from looking at the code).
I'm not a programmer but that is what Gavin Andresen said[1]; he said something like this "Satoshi was an excellent C++ programmer but he wasn't a cryptographer" and "Satoshi wasn't familiar with Cryptography 101" in a sense that Satoshi was sometimes mixing up basic cryptographic concepts.
And yea I know Bitcoin had plenty of bugs I heard of notorious Value overflow incident[2].
>IMO it was initially written by someone deep in government (but I have no proof, just my opinion from looking at the code).
My assumption is someone from the academia e.g. university professor. Maybe someone who was teaching freshmen basics of Computer Science and basic C++ programming then your point might be valid that Bitcoin's codebase was poorly written looking from the practical and from the professional point of view.