Re:The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
by scoofy on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @01:14PM
(#26650013)
It's a simple equation.
n = How many 0-days are out the there that could topple the systems in control of the BTC I own.
p = The probability that said exploit is used on me and my wallet and not someone else.
n * p = my risk of losing everything
p is very small, but n is very, VERY... big
With tradition assets, they are backed with contracts that can make potential thefts unwound or made whole in some other way. With crypto, every ocean's 11-style cat-burglar in the world has access to every bank in the world... and that can't be unwound.
>It only takes one 0-day wipe you out, irreversibly, and completely. My bank could get hacked, but we, as a society, can just decide that I still have the assets I had before, the paper stocks and coupons are in a drawer somewhere. The loan contracts are in a filing cabinet (or they should be). I get my bank statements every month. There's some cash and some gold in a vault. A breach is, at least theoretically, reversible. That's not true with bitcoin.
Isn't this more just an argument that cryptocurrency's are just riskier because unlike tradition financial institutions/investments they are unregulated and lack protections such as insurance etc. Maybe I am just getting caught up in semantics but a 0-day wiping out the value of Bitcoin/Crypto with no vehicle in place to restore that value to its owners if something were to happen just makes it extremely risky/highly speculative investment not necessarily easy to steal