3 ms·
But then, at the very least, that's no less expensive than securing gold. You still have a physical object that you need to secure and protect.
by synicalx 9y ago
But then, at the very least, that's no less expensive than securing gold. You still have a physical object that you need to secure and protect.
- __s 9y agoThe physical object however takes up much less space & through a multisig address breaching one storage point is insufficient
- synicalx 9y agoA bit less space, unless you're talking about storing hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars worth of gold. Not to mention for a common thief it's a little hard to turn gold into cash anonymously whereas that's very easy to do with BTC.
- jstanley 9y agoIt's not easy to do it with BTC. If you have contacts that can do it for BTC they can most likely do the same for gold.
- canoebuilder 9y agoIn most cases the unwieldiness of a ton of gold compared to X number of crypto-coins serves as a superior security mechanism for a 'store of value.' A ton of gold exists in a single time and space, meaning security measures are highly localized and conveyance to another location requires a non-trivial energy expenditure. The more or less "pure information" basis of crypto-currencies mean the security mechanisms surrounding them must be "global," they can be potentially accessed unauthorized by someone anywhere on the planet through means of social engineering, exploiting faulty code, or similar. And once accessed the "pure information" can vanish from the reach of the ostensible owner with just a few electrons cycling through a few circuits. In fact what percentage of the total supply of bitcoin were acquired in just such a manner?