Not necessarily. Each person could create their own blacklist, and just not trade with anyone who is using coins on it. Granted, that requires personal integrity. But it's a bit like saying "I don't do business with Iran." Some countries do, others don't.

If you are skeptical of the personal integrity component (on the part of others) you could make it more useful by saying "I don't trade with anyone who doesn't also share my same blacklist"

Almost all countries follow the US imposed sanctions against Iran. If you don't it will be very hard to do business with anyone in the US. Here is an example of a bank from my country being fined by US regulators for allowing transactions to Iran (and Cuba):

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ing-sanctions-idUSBRE85B1...

> A two-year criminal probe was conducted jointly between the U.S. Department of Justice and the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control conducted its own investigation.

Companies follow those sanctions because they don't want to be slapped by US regulators (they don't have to pay the fine, but that means losing access to the US banking system). Not many western countries besides the US have problems with Iran (as opposed to other middle eastern countries).

-----

As to your point: everyone creating a blacklist is a big hot potato game. If you're not on top of the latest hacks and get some bitcoin that were stolen you'll be at a loss. This would defeat Bitcoin's fungability and defeat it's purpose as a currency.

The same happen with counterfeit money, yet here we are, still using it everywhere.

In most case, if it's physical, you can catch it before it get send. If it's digital, you can cut access. No big deal.

Go see any big Ebay seller and find one that didn't lost any money from a scammer.

We are talking about blacklist that would make a stolen bitcoin, no longer a real bitcoin and thus be at lost. If you consider it still a real bitcoin, how can you consider it a loss? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If it doesn't... it's probably not...

You talk about being on top of the latest hacks... isn't the same as being on top of the latest counterfeited money?

And in my second paragraph, I make exactly that point:

make it more useful by saying "I don't trade with anyone who doesn't also share my same blacklist"

A blacklist like you suggest has been tried and shot down many times, for example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.0

People are pwned every day. Leaked passwords, leaked photos, leaked sensitive information, trivial fraud, identity theft, social engineering so easy that you can get into a website's AWS account with its WHOIS information. No need to focus on hobby projects: the government and mature corporations get pwned and leak your data, too. It's a massive clusterfuck.

Our security models are still so fledgling and so bad that last week I watched my girlfriend download and execute a binary from a fake download button served by Google Adsense.

And I'd agree. But I don't think we should revert back to papyrus.

I think tolerance is a weird way to discuss this issue. I don't think it's the right word nor concept. But to continue the theme, there are things I don't tolerate about, say, the banking and credit card system either.

Like how, by default, if I type my credit/debit card number into a <form>, anyone can use that data any time in the future to spend my money, and I have to remain eternally vigilant each time my transaction statement comes. Or how annoying or impossible it is to send/receive money between random people just using our bank accounts, usually having to rope in yet another party/service. Or how hard it is to juggle bank accounts in multiple countries as a traveler.

I suppose you're asking why someone would use bitcoin despite news like this? Sure, I like using bitcoin for online payments and money transfers.

If you're asking why anyone should tolerate the risk of keeping your bitcoin in somebody else's pocket, like Binance's pocket, then I agree. They shouldn't, but they don't necessarily understand that.

This may seem pedantic, but no! You certainly don't have physical cash at your bank.

Only a miniscule percentage of monetary reserves are in physical form and a bank is not obliged (as a matter of fact it would be rather counter productive) to store physical cash on customer deposits.

The comment I replied to compared bitcoin to cash-in-the-bank, and my point was the same as yours: while I may have handed the bank cash, my ability to get money back isn’t tied to that specific cash, or even to any amount of cash that might be stolen from the bank at all. The money is insured, and so if the bank is robbed, my ability to withdrawal my money is unchanged.

So even if all central bank money would be printed in bills and coins, and would be distributed to banks, that still would be only a small percentage of the numbers on everyone's bank account.

This means that those numbers on your bank account are not "money you have now", it is "money you will have in some future, when everyone pays back their loans".

So that is what they mean with a "bank run". Everyone wants their money NOW, but that is impossible, since most of the money is lended out.

So to the parent poster, even if there is no robbery, you will have a serious problem when everybody wants their money NOW. See what happened in Greece some years ago, where nobody was able to withdraw more than 50 euro's per day, since the banks had a crisis.

Thinking the money on your bank account is yours NOW is just an illusion.

Think about it: if commercial banks wouldn't handle finance in the way you describe, it would be virtually impossible that they go bust.

They could still be drowned by dodgy loans. But let's just say that the risk profile would be rather different.

Fractional-reserve banking is the common practice by commercial banks of accepting deposits, and making loans or investments, while holding reserves at least equal to a fraction of the bank's deposit liabilities.

Let's say we have a 5% reserve, which is realistic if you look at EU and US. Let's say there is a new bank, and you deposit 100 euro's at that bank.

I go there to lend out $95, which is allowed because the bank keeps $5. You have a nice shop, and I buy something for $95.

You deposit this $95 at the bank, which they can lend out again keeping a 5% fraction. I go there and lend out $90, buy something at your shop, and you again deposit this at the bank. We do the same with $85 and $80.

So you now have an account with 100 + 95 + 90 + 85 + 80 = $450. Nice! Now you go to that bank and request that money in cash.... oops.

Seems weird, but this is actually how it works. Look it up if you don't believe me: fractional reserve banking!!!

But outside of that many things could cause the bank to lose your money. And there wouldn’t be a recourse for it.