pull down to refresh
yeah fair -- I meant the change to introduce CCs and noncustody troubles about a year ago. (Before then, SN operated a custodial wallet itself, and we only operated with sats that you could deposit or withdraw effortlessly).
While I prefer CCs to fiddling with attached wallets (outsourcing custody/custody theatre) I would prefer rolling that change back even more.
do you think there would be too much friction for a closely-affiliated semi-custodial service to be launched by some sufficiently reputed community member, and then the onboarding of new accounts would include it as a default option?
I doubt @k00b would want to do it, given that he's probably the individual decision maker who ultimately made the call that administering custodial wallets was not worth the legal heat; although maybe someone with enough respect for fiat systems, who still cares enough about SN, wants to educate about disintermediation, and already understands how services like CoinOS work...
I wonder whether anyone might actually want to do this; @Solomonsatoshi is probably much happier as a commenter and customer than entrepeneur.
made the call that administering custodial wallets was not worth the legal heat;
I understand that that was the reason: Not my call to make, not me bearing the potential consequences, so there's not too much I can do but voice my concerns as a user.
(In chess we say, "it's always easier to move someone else's pieces")
I've realised already that you're often being sarcastic although in this case, I'm not familiar enough with all of SN's history to understand exactly which mechanism you're criticising as the bad one. Your post's closing with "seems to work fine" suggests that you're criticising one of the "trust" mechanisms and are optimistic about the status quo?
Please at least comment "no" if I'm wrong; I really do value your experience and input in the site and consider your opinions worth understanding accurately, even if I might not ultimately agree with all of them.