[n_time]

Thank goodness it's decentralized and there are no single points of failure.

[thebean11]

How is this a single point of failure? The issue was limited to a subset of users keeping funds in a Crypto.com wallet.

Unless by "it" you mean crypto.com and not Ethereum. Crypto.com is not decentralized.

[wpietri]

And I think that's exactly the point. Cryptocurrency promoters endlessly talk up how it's part of a decentralized wave of the future. But in practice it's quite centralized, and the incentives point in that direction for the future. That's one of the points made very well recently by Moxie Marlinspike: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html

[smokey_circles]

It is the implementation.

I believe in bitcoin, works well and I don't blame the consumer for the producer's problems when it comes to power.

But exchanges have become a key part of the implementation.

That's not the real issue though. The issue is the _need_ for exchanges. They provide a host of services, mostly all of which are antithetical to the loftier ideals espoused by bitcoin.

Too many crypto fans waltz passed this glaringly obvious issue and these kinds of stories will never go away as a result.

If banks get hacked, nobody blames the internet. "a small sub section of the system" applies as aptly to the blockchain as it does the global financial system, and I'm pretty confident being a locally popular trading commodity amongst edge communities is not the central goal for bitcoin

[capableweb]

I agree. Imagine if a centralized system was compromised and every single account holder was at risk. Instead there is only a small sub-section of accounts that were vulnerable, thank goodness for that.

[mritchie712]

I'm guessing this is sarcasm? crypto.com is very very far from a single point of failure.

[boopboopbadoop]

They might be alluding to the removal of centralized authorities that would have otherwise been able to get that money back.