Hacker News Reader

Comment by Analemma_ | Hacker News Reader

This looks like a bill releasing providers from any liability if they fuck up and lose all my money via engineering incompetence. Which they probably will, because history has repeatedly shown that crypto is total amateur hour.

No thanks. I'll be calling my rep to urge them to vote against this.

View on HN

The point of non-custodial wallets is that the developer does not have your private keys, so they don't control your funds. While it's possible for the software to have bugs, remember that almost all software is already provided AS IS WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, and that in no event with the authors be liable for any damages arising out of or related to its use.

While that's true, even non-custodial wallet providers get a commission from swap providers, some of which steal money altogether. As per Reddit, an example of such a scamming swapper is Exolix. This makes it a responsibility of the wallet to not collude with scammers.

Warranty disclaimers can only disclaim warranty as far as the law otherwise allows.

You're eliding the difference between software and a provider of financial services. My bank is absolutely liable if they fuck up and lose my money, and crypto entities should be as well.

Yes, but a non-custodial wallet isn't anything resembling a bank. What you're arguing is basically that a (traditional) wallet manufacturer should be liable if you misplace your wallet and have all your cash stolen.

That's only because you losing a physical wallet is your own negligence and not the negligence of the manufacturer. Not because there is no possible way that a digital wallet manufacturer couldn't lose your money due to their own negligence (or even malice).

> a (traditional) wallet manufacturer should be liable if

- the wallet spontaneously burns and the money ends in ashes

- the wallet cannot be ever opened again and the cash within it sealed out of reach

- the bills are tainted by poisonous substance sipping from the internal lining making them hazardeous to use

That's kind of an interesting exercice, I think we can all come up with a few dozens of cases where a traditional wallet manufacturer would be liable because of technical or regulation issues.

>releasing providers from any liability if they fuck up and lose all my money via engineering incompetence

If someone fucks up and downloads some shady wallet app that steals their coins, they're the one at fault. How about trying to take some personal responsibility, instead of trying to get the full force of government to stop other people keeping custody of their own coins, just to protect yourself from potentially making a bad decision and installing a dodgy app? Edited to remove a personal attack

This sounds a bit like arguing that doctors shouldn't be liable for harming a patient. If you make a shady app you should be held responsible for losing your customers' money.

Edit: I use grapheneos and I don't agree with google gate-keeping what people put on their phone. I just thinks crypto companies, like any company, should be held accountable for their actions.

>This sounds a bit like arguing that doctors shouldn't be liable for harming a patient. If you make a shady app you should be held responsible for losing your customers' money.

That's not what the issue is; the issue is that Play Store would ban _any_ app allowing coin self-custody, even if the app isn't any way shady.

I'm not responding to the article I'm responding to this in the parent comment

> If someone fucks up and downloads some shady wallet app that steals their coins, they're the one at fault.

I don't agree with what google is doing. I think we should be able to download whatever we want on our phones. I think it's not a good take that the customer instead of the company, is the one that should be held responsible if a company fucks up.

How do you reconcile these two choices?

* we should be able to download whatever we want on our phones

* not a good take that the customer [...] is one that should be held responsible

Please don’t make such personal attacks, it doesn’t add to the conversation.

If you want to have a wallet app that is not backed by a company with a banking license, then could you not side load it?

We have basic minimum standards in our food safety, why not have them in our financial services?

You, as an expert in the field still can download any application you wish, but others that may not be an expert, are given some protection from potentially AI Slop apps that they wouldn’t understand are dangerous.

>If you want to have a wallet app that is not backed by a company with a banking license, then could you not side load it?

If you haven't noticed, there's a concerted push to make side-loading harder and harder. Sure it's an option for now, but it's quite possible we're only a few years away from Google going the Apple route and the vast majority of mobile devices not supporting installing unapproved software.

Fraud and theft is illegal basically everywhere, and the people who commit those crimes are at fault for them. Stealing money is the fault of the person who steals the money.

It's kind of like when you fuck up and hire the wrong plumber and he tells his burglar friend about your huge TV and they break in to steal it a week later. That's your own fault, stop trying to get the government involved! Sheesh, I just don't understand why simple libertarian principles like this get people confused.

>It's kind of like when you fuck up and hire the wrong plumber and he tells his burglar friend about your huge TV and they break in to steal it a week later. That's your own fault, stop trying to get the government involved! Sheesh, I just don't understand why simple libertarian principles like this get people confused.

That's a great example because the venue where the plumber posted his advertisement would not be liable for the plumber's actions.

Not even if they knew, or should reasonably have known, that the plumber was doing this?

Are you implying that any app that allows personal custody of cryptocurrency is a scam? Because that's not a reasonable assumption to make; the possibility of self-custody is one of the main arguments made for cryptocurrency.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com