It's not a deficit because everyday users can use a service that handles private keys for them. Managing private keys and signing transactions is not the level of the tech stack that nontechnical folks were ever meant to be on.
It's like complaining that REST APIs aren't user friendly.
My point is for someone who understand how keys work a bit better (like a lot of people here) there are better ways to set things up.
Yes, the crypto people got a lot of things wrong. One is the idea that you have to trust banks. You don't. There's a whole system in place that protects us from banks, or anybody else, behaving badly. It's called 'civilisation'.
Do you think bank insurance is free? You seem to think crypto can't have insurance or maybe that it'll be costly while ignoring that bank insurance is something you are paying for. It's not free and the bank isn't doing you a favor.
Sure that's the point. Individuals can make a judgement call over who they think is least likely to lose their keys, themselves or Coinbase. Many of those crypto "banks" are insured.
My understanding, and this may be wrong since I don’t actually have Monero, is it’s not since US customers are subject to KYC. While the transaction on the blockchain would be obfuscated, the Exchange as the sender/receiver would still have the withdraw and deposit addresses since they were one of the parties of the transaction.
Further transactions after withdrawing would be difficult to discern, but an exchange could be used to track an approximation of how much Monero you own.
A cash based ATM purchase would be more difficult to track since no KYC is involved.
Monero itself is not KYC, sorry if I worded that poorly above.
The transactions to and from Kraken can definitely be tracked since they would have a record of the actual wallet address you sent your funds to. As for things that happen after that money hits your wallet - you’re right they wouldn’t be able to track it.
I checked the Monero subreddit just to see if my understanding of it tracked with what people who actually own it say and it looks like they agree that transferring from a KYC exchange does allow tracking for transactions coming out or into the exchange.
I also didn't say you transfer directly into Kraken. Instead, you would use at least 1 or 2 other wallets before transferring into Kraken, because that bypasses their scanning.
Kraken is still cheaper while doing that than paying a 10% fee for an ATM.
have not used kraken, but the convenience i am talking about is that someone who has never used any cryptocurrency and does not hold any, can simply walk in there with cash and have monero a minute later, ready to use. but it is true that for many people that convenience is not worth a whole 10%, especially if they somewhat know what they are doing.
You still need to create a wallet, key, etc. and that is not easy to do for beginners without an exchange like Kraken. Most DNMs use temporary addresses so it's not a good idea to try to transfer directly from a bitcon ATM to a DNM.
>That’s funny, I wondered why Amazon order emailed sucked so hard lately. Thought it was just them being dumb.
It's the opposite.
Amazon wants you to click back into the store to buy things. One way to do that is forcing you to view orders in the store instead of your email inbox. They care more about that than Google seeing your purchase history.
I work for another retail where we discussed this same topic, and during that discussion I talked to some of my friends at Amazon and I would bet a lot of money that your guarantee is wrong. From what they told me, the decision to remove info from the emails was a company-wide campaign that was specifically created as a result of this [0] NYTimes article, which specifically calls out Google snooping on Amazon shopper data.
I'm sure the advertising PMs were happy to support this decision because it got them more page clicks, but my understanding is that the underlying motive was privacy.
privacy, or moat building? I don't consider it a breach of privacy for Gmail to index my purchases in order to show me more relevant ads and help provide a free service. And I definitely want to be able to search that index myself, like if I know I bought a product but can't remember from who or when it was, it sure would be nice to be able to search my Gmail for it.
I would think that too, if there were any ads on the order detail page. Since there aren't (above the fold anyway), wouldn't that just drive up bandwidth costs with no real benefit to Amazon?
yea i like this take better. facebook used to include message or comment content in notification emails. it was nice to get updates without having to log on to their horrible GUI. but of course they cant make ad impressions if i never log on… their emails no longer contain content of comments.
I thought the lists were a red herring for the problems with privatized healthcare - i.e. look at how complicated pricing is, not how it is being complicated by for-profit middlemen.
One interesting aspect of the No Surprises Act regulations that would seem to support your claim is the three hour required waiting period for non-emergency same-day procedures. The waiting period is ostensibly to prevent patients from feeling rushed or pressured into agreeing the price but the "long wait" boogeyman is another common red herring in the healthcare discussion and the three-hour wait seems unnecessary. The wait applies only in non-emergency situations so logic would follow that if the quoted price were too high the patient could leave.
>the adapters are large enough that there are only 4 but also small enough that making a 2x USB A adapter would be quite challenging.
This was my thought as well, but they're planning on doing more interfaces than what they're listing now, so it may be they went for universibility with the size.
Also USB-A is going to slowly die off anyways, so I doubt it's good to build the dongle standard to two USB-As.
FWIW Amnesty International has been calling out Apple's kowtowing to China and invasion of privacy for the last three years, but it's been falling on mostly deaf ears:
More to the author's point, in a free market you can have consumer watchdogs providing transparency, but even they can still be drowned out by "privacy"-based branding from giants.
Text available on Google cache:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VhqweeF...