undefined | Better HN

0 pointsronsor7mo ago0 comments

The point of non-custodial wallets is that the developer does not have your private keys, so they don't control your funds. While it's possible for the software to have bugs, remember that almost all software is already provided AS IS WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, and that in no event with the authors be liable for any damages arising out of or related to its use.

0 comments

OutOfHere7mo ago

While that's true, even non-custodial wallet providers get a commission from swap providers, some of which steal money altogether. As per Reddit, an example of such a scamming swapper is Exolix. This makes it a responsibility of the wallet to not collude with scammers.

kube-system7mo ago

Warranty disclaimers can only disclaim warranty as far as the law otherwise allows.

Analemma_7mo ago

You're eliding the difference between software and a provider of financial services. My bank is absolutely liable if they fuck up and lose my money, and crypto entities should be as well.

ronsorOP7mo ago

Yes, but a non-custodial wallet isn't anything resembling a bank. What you're arguing is basically that a (traditional) wallet manufacturer should be liable if you misplace your wallet and have all your cash stolen.

kube-system7mo ago

That's only because you losing a physical wallet is your own negligence and not the negligence of the manufacturer. Not because there is no possible way that a digital wallet manufacturer couldn't lose your money due to their own negligence (or even malice).

makeitdouble7mo ago

> a (traditional) wallet manufacturer should be liable if

- the wallet spontaneously burns and the money ends in ashes

- the wallet cannot be ever opened again and the cash within it sealed out of reach

- the bills are tainted by poisonous substance sipping from the internal lining making them hazardeous to use

That's kind of an interesting exercice, I think we can all come up with a few dozens of cases where a traditional wallet manufacturer would be liable because of technical or regulation issues.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

OutOfHere7mo ago

kube-system7mo ago

Warranty disclaimers can only disclaim warranty as far as the law otherwise allows.

Analemma_7mo ago

You're eliding the difference between software and a provider of financial services. My bank is absolutely liable if they fuck up and lose my money, and crypto entities should be as well.

ronsorOP7mo ago

kube-system7mo ago

makeitdouble7mo ago

> a (traditional) wallet manufacturer should be liable if

- the wallet spontaneously burns and the money ends in ashes

- the wallet cannot be ever opened again and the cash within it sealed out of reach

- the bills are tainted by poisonous substance sipping from the internal lining making them hazardeous to use

That's kind of an interesting exercice, I think we can all come up with a few dozens of cases where a traditional wallet manufacturer would be liable because of technical or regulation issues.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse