5 ms·

You forgot to mention: if you lose your keys, youre fucked. That is, of course unless you trust a centralized unregulated entity to manage them for you.

doliveira 4y ago
Yeah, and if you lose your private key apparently you deserve to lose everything.
- throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
  In the same way as someone keeping their savings in cash under their mattress deserves to lose everything or in a different way?
  - wmf 4y ago
    Many fervent crypto advocates seem to have downright malicious attitudes toward people who either lose money on crypto or refuse to participate in it. They've spawned sarcastic memes like "sorry for your loss" and "have fun staying poor".
  - lottin 4y ago
    I think the comment you're replying to is ironic.
DennisP 4y ago
Or use social recovery wallets. https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/11/recovery.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/11/recovery.html
wmf 4y ago
Wallet recovery is similar to reversing transactions: you can have it if you're willing to nominate some third party that you trust to manage it for you.
- lottin 4y ago
  In which case the entire blockchain thing becomes redundant.
almostkorean 4y ago
This is a huge UX issue for anyone that wants to self-custody. In the same spirit as the OP, people are working on solutions for this. Vitalik posted about it last year: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/11/recovery.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/11/recovery.html. I don't know the technical details, but Coinbase is launching a wallet system where the private key is "split" between the user and Coinbase. After explaining improvements to this specific issue, it still feels like way too much friction for the average person to deal with. I think there will be more improvements as time goes on but maybe that's just the cost of doing self-custody. In the end, I guess it's up to the individual to decide whether it's worth it or not.
- senttoschool 4y ago
  But you're still putting your trust into a centralized organization (Coinbase). So we're back to square one.
  - almostkorean 4y ago
    I was talking about Coinbase MPC wallet, where they have part of your private key. I think that's pretty far from back to square one, is it not? You still own your private keys but are trusting a centralized organization to keep the other, so it would require both parties to be hacked for the wallet to be at risk.
    - kingaillas 4y ago
      >You still own your private keys but are trusting a centralized organization to keep the other, so it would require both parties to be hacked for the wallet to be at risk Wouldn't it just require one to be hacked - where the risk is losing access to your wallet? Say an evil hacker destroys one of the halves of your private key, now the wallet is unavailable. If the risk is - drain the account - then yes, both would need to be hacked in order to get access.
      - everfree 4y ago
Acrobatic_Road 4y ago
Not true, see tor.us
everfree 4y ago
Banks started out unregulated, and I believe it won't be long until crypto custodians are heavily regulated too. The legislative system just needs time to react.

doliveira 4y ago

Yeah, and if you lose your private key apparently you deserve to lose everything.

throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
In the same way as someone keeping their savings in cash under their mattress deserves to lose everything or in a different way?
- wmf 4y ago
  Many fervent crypto advocates seem to have downright malicious attitudes toward people who either lose money on crypto or refuse to participate in it. They've spawned sarcastic memes like "sorry for your loss" and "have fun staying poor".
- lottin 4y ago
  I think the comment you're replying to is ironic.

DennisP 4y ago

Or use social recovery wallets. https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/11/recovery.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/11/recovery.html

wmf 4y ago

Wallet recovery is similar to reversing transactions: you can have it if you're willing to nominate some third party that you trust to manage it for you.

lottin 4y ago
In which case the entire blockchain thing becomes redundant.

almostkorean 4y ago

This is a huge UX issue for anyone that wants to self-custody. In the same spirit as the OP, people are working on solutions for this. Vitalik posted about it last year: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/11/recovery.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/11/recovery.html. I don't know the technical details, but Coinbase is launching a wallet system where the private key is "split" between the user and Coinbase. After explaining improvements to this specific issue, it still feels like way too much friction for the average person to deal with. I think there will be more improvements as time goes on but maybe that's just the cost of doing self-custody. In the end, I guess it's up to the individual to decide whether it's worth it or not.

senttoschool 4y ago
But you're still putting your trust into a centralized organization (Coinbase). So we're back to square one.
- almostkorean 4y ago
  I was talking about Coinbase MPC wallet, where they have part of your private key. I think that's pretty far from back to square one, is it not? You still own your private keys but are trusting a centralized organization to keep the other, so it would require both parties to be hacked for the wallet to be at risk.
  - kingaillas 4y ago
    >You still own your private keys but are trusting a centralized organization to keep the other, so it would require both parties to be hacked for the wallet to be at risk Wouldn't it just require one to be hacked - where the risk is losing access to your wallet? Say an evil hacker destroys one of the halves of your private key, now the wallet is unavailable. If the risk is - drain the account - then yes, both would need to be hacked in order to get access.
    - everfree 4y ago

Acrobatic_Road 4y ago

Not true, see tor.us

everfree 4y ago

Banks started out unregulated, and I believe it won't be long until crypto custodians are heavily regulated too. The legislative system just needs time to react.