venaoy_

19 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by venaoy_ 12y ago

   Are you not replying to my main point (most merchants are honest therefore chargebacks are rarely needed) because you agree with it? > That may be a problem with the current implementation, but it doesn't have to be I agree. But I h
2. 2.▲
   by venaoy_ 12y ago

   No, Coinbase is insured even if only a "fraction" of their site is hacked. I am not sure why you would claim the insurance only covers a hack of the "entire site", but not a "fraction". See, my point is that th
3. 3.▲
   by venaoy_ 12y ago

   Coinbase's bitcoins are insured. And Coinbase's dollars are FDIC-insured. There is nothing inherent to Bitcoin that prevents an exchange from being operated responsibly and covered/insured just as well as traditional financia
4. 4.▲
   by venaoy_ 12y ago

   Just one, plus this temporary account. I am not at home and I don't have access to my password safe containing my HN password.
5. 5.▲
   by venaoy_ 12y ago

   It was not a ponzi, but MtGox became insolvent through fraud: Mark Karpeles simulated fake transactions with fake coins and fake dollars using his willy bot.
6. 6.▲
   by venaoy_ 12y ago

   (I can't log into my venaoy HN account at the moment) > Spinning a lack of reversible transactions as being a "Benefit" is disingenuous I argue, through my examples, that reversibility is often not as important as you may