> There's a literal saying, "Not your keys, not your coins".
Doesn't that also legitimatize a hack then? If someone hacks or steals your keys, you can't then turn around and say "but wait, those aren't your keys".
Yes, it does, but some of us actually consider this to be a feature.
The issue with reversibility is that it’s not just reversibility - it’s also the power for the authorities to take your assets from you.
The question isn’t “do you want to be able to get your money back after it was stolen”, it’s really, “do you want the powers that be to be able to decide whose money it is.” We’ve been lucky to live in a world where “yes” is a reasonable answer. But there’s no guarantee that it’ll stay that way. And crypto is insurance against that possible change.
In what way is crypto an insurance there? Typically, ruthless regimes are good at separating you from your assets. I don't see any of the typical methods not working with crypto.
It's really only an insurance against marginally bad situations and there lots of other things work equally well.
To be clear, "crypto" is just a book that says these individuals own however many tokens. It doesn't guarantee that anyone will abide by what the books says. It doesn't guarantee that nobody will take your real wealth from you by force.
Crypto obviously has its disadvantages, hacks being one. There could be major UX improvements to crypto that would aid in reducing hacks and increasing security.
But either way, it's a tradeoff and that's fine. TradFi is reversible and centralized, crypto is not. Sometimes you want one thing, sometimes you want the other.
I like having part of my assets in a way that can't be frozen, like the people that protested in Canada whose banks accounts were frozen.
Doesn't that also legitimatize a hack then? If someone hacks or steals your keys, you can't then turn around and say "but wait, those aren't your keys".