Why wouldn't he? I don't know of any online anything that refunds you from their own pocket, so, that he can't get the transaction back (like some bank account transactions can be, or, they can be traced to a person) is a feature inherent to Bitcoin and not so much Coinbase.
Because it's colluding topics. "break into your account" refers to a Coinbase account. "lack of regulation" refers to the Bitcoin methods. Using both of those in a sentence or quoting that sentence in another comment creates implied blame.
The original comment could be assumed to say two different things: 1. If Coinbase security was compromised, then Coinbase is accountable for the transfer of Bitcoin from op's account. 2. If the op 'allowed' access to his account through malware or unsecure API keys, then the op is accountable.
I believe the second assumption is what chasing was referring to. I should have been clearer in my questioning.
Edit: Actually, I shouldn't have even asked the question. I should have said what I said above instead of asking a leading question. My fault.
Well, for example: My understanding is that if you bank with dollars (in the US), the FDIC insures your deposit up to a certain amount. A feature of the currency is also a feature of the bank holding that currency. It's hard to pull the two completely apart.
The purpose of FDIC insurance is to protect against bank runs due to the nature of the fractional reserve banking system (not a problem with Bitcoin, at least not yet), not to protect against hackers.
Now, whether Bitcoin services need stricter regulation in terms of security is another question. I don't think Coinbase goes far enough with their security yet (2FA on withdrawals seems like a no-brainer)
Comments
Why are you comparing Coinbase features with Bitcoin features?
Why wouldn't he? I don't know of any online anything that refunds you from their own pocket, so, that he can't get the transaction back (like some bank account transactions can be, or, they can be traced to a person) is a feature inherent to Bitcoin and not so much Coinbase.
EDIT: spelling correction.
Because it's colluding topics. "break into your account" refers to a Coinbase account. "lack of regulation" refers to the Bitcoin methods. Using both of those in a sentence or quoting that sentence in another comment creates implied blame.
The original comment could be assumed to say two different things: 1. If Coinbase security was compromised, then Coinbase is accountable for the transfer of Bitcoin from op's account. 2. If the op 'allowed' access to his account through malware or unsecure API keys, then the op is accountable.
I believe the second assumption is what chasing was referring to. I should have been clearer in my questioning.
Edit: Actually, I shouldn't have even asked the question. I should have said what I said above instead of asking a leading question. My fault.
Well, for example: My understanding is that if you bank with dollars (in the US), the FDIC insures your deposit up to a certain amount. A feature of the currency is also a feature of the bank holding that currency. It's hard to pull the two completely apart.
The purpose of FDIC insurance is to protect against bank runs due to the nature of the fractional reserve banking system (not a problem with Bitcoin, at least not yet), not to protect against hackers.
Now, whether Bitcoin services need stricter regulation in terms of security is another question. I don't think Coinbase goes far enough with their security yet (2FA on withdrawals seems like a no-brainer)