Nick Szabo  🔑

I think such agreements are bullshit. And legally speaking they often are: courts don't let you sign away all liability with a simple contract without a clear and informed discussion about the risks.

For example, a wilderness guide will likely have you sign a waiver. But the waiver is worthless by itself: the part that protects them is the information (often via a discussion) you'll get about what risks you'll be encountering on that trip. Good guides do that.

These wilderness guides are offering a wilderness guide service. AT&T is not offering an "identity" service. The guides at Yoesemite won't give you information about Chinese pandas, because that's well outside the scope of their service and they need know nothing about pandas.

Similarly, phone company people do not and need not know how phone numbers are being used as a security theater shortcut for real security in the dizzying variety of new technologies such as cryptocurrency. That's Coinbases' business, it is not at all theirs.

Again, I'm not expecting them to know about a "dizzying variety of technologies" I'm expecting them to know about a few major ones and respond appropriately when lots of people are getting hurt.

Yes you certainly are expecting, e.g., for them to know that cryptocurrency transactions are irreversible (when the traditional banking transactions they are familiar with are not) and then warn about such dangers. That is very much Coinbase's business and knowledge, not theirs.

No I'm not. I'm expecting them to notice that lots of people are getting hurt, via well publicized hacks, over and over again. I am *not* expecting them to anticipate new threats. That would require in-depth knowledge. (that's what we expect from engineering...)