“But what if there’s a bug and my code doesn’t do what I intended, letting someone take my money via means I didn’t expect?”

“Well, then you deserve to lose your money for your poor decision-making. Plus all the benefits of a process beyond human influence are worth making it so human judges and laws and fuzzy ideas of fairness can’t fix things. Besides, those fuzzy ideas do more harm than good.”

“There’s a bug in your code.”

”Okay, so let’s do a soft fork of the network in the short term to prevent the money from being spent, get the exchanges to freeze withdrawals, and then review what code changes we can make to give the money back to its proper owners.”

(This is a Plato’s chicken thing; if they truly deferred to the concept of ownership they’ve encoded into the software, the reaction would be “Yes, it’s the hacker’s money now, what of it?”)

Good ol’ fiat currency with fiat decision making remains the most reliable way for anyone with any grasp of the bounds of their own rationality, anyone who thinks the concept of an “unconscionable” contract has some value to them, to keep a balance.

Geeks love technology problems and hate people problems, so they try and convert every people problem into a technology problem.

Money is inherently social, because it’s merely a system for keeping track of how much you owe each other. Taking people out of the equation renders it absolutely useless, as the whole system only works by mutual agreement.

tl;dr bitcoin sux lmao