Hacker News Reader

Comment by adrr | Hacker News Reader

If coinbase was a bank. It would be their problem because the user didn't authorized the transfers. Another reason why you should keep your money at a bank.

View on HN

Keep your money in a bank and basicly they owe you a debt. If the bank goes belly-up, you stuck hoping FDIC insurance covers you.

Not your keys, not your coins. If one has significant savings in bitcoin, one needs to hold the private keys oneself, not trusting any third-party like Coinbase or a bank. Ideally in a geographically distributed multisignature setup to mitigate against loss, user-error, or theft.

Do we know if the OP's 96k was coins sitting on Coinbase, or if he had a linked bank account and the attacker used the SIM card swap attack via Coinbase to drain his bank account?

if he had a linked bank account and the attacker used the SIM card swap attack via Coinbase to drain his bank account

In a case like that you can reverse the ACH. It's more likely that assets on Coinbase were stolen.

Has FDIC ever failed to cover anyone? As for storing youre own keys, thats the equivalent of keeping your money in your mattress. House burns down with your wallet. Bye bye money. As you mentioned storing you key in parts at multi locations if you have money and knowledge. Would these locations be at a vault at a bank?

> Keep your money in a bank and basicly they owe you a debt. If the bank goes belly-up, you stuck hoping FDIC insurance covers you.

If you don't trust the full faith and credit of the US government, than who do you trust?

Unauthorized withdrawals happen all the time at banks. They don't just reverse money because you claim it was unauthorized. You have to prove it. Within a limited time period. Under certain transaction types. Good luck doing that.

They have to prove its authorized and they have 30 days to do it per Reg E. For fraud like this, they have to get you to say "i shared my password with someone". This is literally in the reg e law. You have a duty to notify you bank in a certain period of time(60 days). Bank is under very different rules than paypal or crypto exchange.

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/100...

Couple months back I had to send someone $5000 and I couldn't. I get denied the use of my money because of this clown shit. Should be able to select a big boy bank account where I'm allowed to use my money but am held responsible for my own security failures

Some banks dont pay out when money has been taken from your account fraudulently, so no, not another reason to keep money at your bank.

Banks have little to no control over this. Banking regulation E controls this aspect.

So yes, a reason to keep it at your bank (which is regulated heavily).

Your bank conducts the investigation. They have a lot of control. Good luck recovering $96,000.

This guy[1] was refunded £70,000 he willingly transferred to scammers! Hard to imagine the same thing happening in the crypto-sphere.

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/mar/06/i-paid-70000-t...

If it wasn't you. Reg E says you're not liable. Literally in the regulations. You will recover that $96,000. Anyone who has worked in bank industry will tell you this.

Yes, because we can take law at face value. So many court cases end up with result that comes from technicalities, like specific interpretation of who "you" are in the context of "transaction"

Reg e ties to your fdic insurance. Banks risk their fdic insurance if they are caught not following reg e. I don't know of anyone who lost money due to their account being hacked with the caveat they didn't share their login details to their spouse or kids and they reported the unauthorized transactions within 60 days.

Some countries (like South Korea) are in the "customer are never in fault", other countries are "users have sole responsibility for their security", but US is in an ambiguous position where you need a court to determine responsibility. If someone said that a US bank didn't pay out for a hack it means that either they're poor to ligitate (understandable, the US legal system is rigged) or they're hiding something that would persuade the judge to side with the bank. This is still the case despite the "we're not responsible for hacked accounts" ToS especially if the bank is the one who fell for social engineering attacks to falsely convince to do something that was unauthorized.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com