Hacker News Reader

Comment by boon | Hacker News Reader

I don't disagree that in a post-regulation world, people are going to have to be more cautious with their monies from a security and risk perspective. That's a good thing.

But a lack of regulation still doesn't make this Bitcoin's disaster. You're doing a great injustice to those of us that did lose money to assign blame to any party other than Mt. Gox.

View on HN

> I don't disagree that in a post-regulation world, people are going to have to be more cautious with their monies from a security and risk perspective. That's a good thing.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Do some reading on what financial life is like for most people in a pre-regulation world. Presumably the post-regulation one wouldn't be terribly different.

No one is forgetting history. I think those of us pointing out that Bitcoin enables perhaps less regulation is because it provides new technologies for self-regulating and self-organizing. n of m wallets, self-executing contracts, autonomous organizations, etc. are all paradigms that we've never seen before and solve some of the efficiency/regulatory problems of the past.

One could imagine a world where the government doesn't regulate, it only provides guidelines that all people can use as a framework or template for the self-contracting they do with potential risk.

Fool me once...

http://flexcoin.com

So what do people have to do to "be more cautious"? If both the biggest and smallest Bitcoin exchanges are getting ransacked, then what does cautious even mean?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com