71–80 of 154 posts
Crypto will not be ready for mainstream until effective game-theoretic countermeasures for this kind of thing are built into the protocols.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are multiples alternatives to Ledger, they are the laughing stock of hardware crypto wallets since they've started their online seed backup solution... at least among power users. Coldcard if you aren't into shitcoins, and Keepkey if you partake in them would be my choices. I would have recommended Trezor at some point but their customer data leak tainted their image for me, they've made a lot of their customer…
This isn't true at all. Ledger has not been a laughingstock of the cryptocurrency community. Their hardware wallet has survived multiple attacks that Trezor has not. It has the strongest security model and easiest to use interface of any cryptocurrency wallet intended for regular use.
I'll add that even if that didn't make them a joke to you, I am just as concerned by their customer data leak (similar to what I've mentioned above for Trezor) and that alone makes me not want to recommend them, I just didn't mention it as the other point is egregious enough on its own.
How does the government of France decide whether your kidnapping is worth sending military tactical teams to rescue you?
How does the government of France decide whether your kidnapping is worth sending military tactical teams to rescue you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Only newer currencies you could lock your money into a smart contract, Bitcoin literally has timelockS (multiple kinds) built-in in its scripting since its first release...
I'd believe that necessary primitives are out there, but it's not really enough to have a solution in theory. A crypto project will have to stop such things in practice before they can legitimately claim to have obsoleted the banks.
The point was not that this alone would make bank obsolete, but rather that this isn't just something "new" cryptocurrencies feature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This shows another of the many ways in which a having a trusted third party involved in your finances is actually a good thing.
Arguably the feature that makes kidnappings for ransom unattractive isn't necessarily traditional banks being trusted, but rather that traditional bank transfers are usually reversible (e.g. due to a court order).
I think I’m surprised this doesn’t happen more often. Maybe I underestimate how good the police are at prevention of this crime.
Or you overestimate how many competent psychos are out there scheming to do anything to make money. Doing a kidnapping and getting a ransom is probably not too hard, but being on the run forever afterwards might not be worth it to most. People with money can hire their own bounty hunters/or plain criminals to go after them afterwards. Or just announce a bounty high enough (in dark channels, your high profile security…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you don't trust Ledger – how much do you trust your VPN provider? They know both your original IP and what you're doing on the Internet (or at least to which services you're connecting). Well, the big difference (for what OP is worried about) is that two distinct companies would need to be compromised instead of just the one.
Exactly, and ip address does not give precise location (unless a third company, the ISP, is also compromised).
I could put down any name and nearby(ish) address I want...
Crypto will not be ready for mainstream until effective game-theoretic countermeasures for this kind of thing are built into the protocols.
in this case most of the ransom has been blocked which isn't new. many of the major crypto heists ended with arrests due to traceability of the funds or unusable funds due to blacklists.