reply on: CFPB proposes rule change to EFT rules; wants to cover virtual currency wallets \ stacker news ~Politics_And

pull down to refresh

16 sats \ 4 replies \ @nerd2ninja 10 Jan \ on: CFPB proposes rule change to EFT rules; wants to cover virtual currency wallets Politics_And_Law

Under this regime, the wallet provider and not the consumer would be responsible for any "unauthorized transfers" including "transfers initiated by a person who obtained a consumer’s access device through fraud or robbery

IMO this is a good rule, given one change, it should not be on the wallet provider, but rather the custodian of the FIAT the token is redeemable for and thus obviously would not apply to Bitcoin.

14 sats \ 3 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 10 Jan

Its a very bad policy that results in all cryptocurrency software development leaving the US.

It is a sleeper hostile proposed rule that makes it too difficult to proceed. This is about blowing up the industry, not protecting consumers.

11 sats \ 2 replies \ @nerd2ninja 10 Jan

That's a good thing.

Bitcoin works best under hostile conditions.

Also the "industry" if you mean the cryptocurrency industry, is all fraud and scams anyway.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 10 Jan

You believe it is a good thing that bitcoin developers in the U.S. could have financial liability if the users lose their money due to their own negligence?

Why would anyone put themselves at this risk, out of the goodness of their hearts on an open source project?

This is not a good thing.

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 10 Jan

Yes, I think developers should be as scared as Satoshi was. I think our mailing list should be on a .onion hidden service.

Too much cowardice for a project designed around resiliency in the face of adversity. We need more adversity so we stop getting developers who make half assed apps that die off as soon as a little regulatory uncertainty is introduced.