So, rather than the consumer being responsible for their actions you support consumers engaging in whatever risky behavior they like as long as someone else is there to protect them or give them a do-over?
Well the "trust me bro" marketers (and developers) have told them this is all good. Is it responsible, idk, probably not.
Then again, the point the GP seems to make is that this kind of platform should not be adopted for anything important, let the gamblers gamble if they want but don't try to sell it to the general public.
The consumer in this case needs to be world class security expert (as "just" being good enough to be core bitcoin developer is clearly not enough) to just not lose money.
That's unreasonable for something that's supposed to be used as money
There is a big middle ground between "cover for users engaging in whatever risky behavior they like" and "cover for nothing whatsoever".
In this case, the problem is expecting users to be perfectly diligent, and either discard all convenience or all security.
Cryptocurrency continues to be a case study demonstrating why so many of the systems it's trying (unsuccessfully) to replace operate in ways that it doesn't.
> So, rather than the consumer being responsible for their actions you support consumers engaging in whatever risky behavior they like as long as someone else is there to protect them or give them a do-over?
Yes. Every time you make a foolproof system the world brings us a bigger fool. I'd rather a few irresponsible people get a do-over than otherwise responsible people getting rekt like this.
So, rather than the consumer being responsible for their actions you support consumers engaging in whatever risky behavior they like as long as someone else is there to protect them or give them a do-over?