5 ms·

? Candidly I don't know what you mean, so I will share this anecdote about gold in trucks: there is a building in downtown Chicago, built at the height of the m

? Candidly I don't know what you mean, so I will share this anecdote about gold in trucks: there is a building in downtown Chicago, built at the height of the mob days, with an elevator which can lift an entire (full) armored car. It can lift it several stories up, into the building, where the bank can unload it safely without risk of robbery. Also, of course, you can't actually steal bitcoin, you can merely steal the keys. That is an actual distinction because possession of the article itself is meaningless without the other half of the cryptographic operation it takes to move it.

tekknik 4y ago
I can insure gold, bitcoin is much more difficult to insure. In fact, I can have my gold stored in a secure facility that I don’t own yet still retain full ownership rights.
- sgammon 4y ago
  yes, you sure can, but that's just a matter of delegated custody; the facility that stores it for you is acting as your agent. bitcoin is harder to insure because guaranteeing the safety of keys remains a challenge.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    No bitcoin has always been difficult to insure because no sane company would insure something that can double or triple value overnight. The extreme finite quantity of bitcoins is what makes it difficult to insure.
    - sgammon 4y ago
      i suppose i thought you meant insurance against theft, not loss of value
      - tekknik 4y ago
        theft is loss of value. either way the fact remains, Bitcoin is difficult to insure due to its scarcity. If I insure 1 BTC now worth $10k then in 20 years or so (or maybe overnight) it jumps to $1mil. The insurance company hasn’t gotten enough premiums to cover the payout. Insurance works well for inflating assets, not so much for deflating.
        sgammon 4y ago
        you don't actually need to lose your coins for them to lose value... custody and value aren't the same thing.
prepend 4y ago
Stealing the keys is effectively stealing Bitcoin. Otherwise you get into semantic mumbo jumbo because Bitcoin isn’t owned by anyone, it’s just assigned to an address that is controlled by a private key, etc etc. If I steal your keys, I steal your Bitcoin. And it’s easier to steal the private keys to $40M in Bitcoin than it is to steal $40M in gold (700 kg). What I meant with my poor analogy is that if a bank is planning on blocking customers from withdrawing funds, it’s much harder to ship out the gold to their friends than to ship out Bitcoin. It’s pretty trivial to allow Bitcoin withdrawals. It’s just logistically hard to coordinate the transport of 700kg of gold out of the bank and to somewhere else.
- sgammon 4y ago
  yes, i agree, but that is still a distinction, is it not? i'm not making a value argument, i'm merely pointing out that possession of the currency itself is not the same as the keys required to exercise control over the currency. arguably, if we are making value statements, there are a set of similar trade-offs for physical protection of keys vs. primary material. 700kg is harder to move: that's a security feature. keys are small: that's a security feature, because they are a small O(1) surface area to protect regardless of how much value they maintain control over at any given moment. these are simply tradeoffs. it is only "easier" to steal keys if they are left unprotected. here's the enormous truck you would need to carry $40m in gold, apparently: https://www.tkingauto.com/mini-truck/rear-single-tire-truck/700kg-light-truck.html https://www.tkingauto.com/mini-truck/rear-single-tire-truck/...

tekknik 4y ago

I can insure gold, bitcoin is much more difficult to insure. In fact, I can have my gold stored in a secure facility that I don’t own yet still retain full ownership rights.

sgammon 4y ago
yes, you sure can, but that's just a matter of delegated custody; the facility that stores it for you is acting as your agent. bitcoin is harder to insure because guaranteeing the safety of keys remains a challenge.
- tekknik 4y ago
  No bitcoin has always been difficult to insure because no sane company would insure something that can double or triple value overnight. The extreme finite quantity of bitcoins is what makes it difficult to insure.
  - sgammon 4y ago
    i suppose i thought you meant insurance against theft, not loss of value
    - tekknik 4y ago
      theft is loss of value. either way the fact remains, Bitcoin is difficult to insure due to its scarcity. If I insure 1 BTC now worth $10k then in 20 years or so (or maybe overnight) it jumps to $1mil. The insurance company hasn’t gotten enough premiums to cover the payout. Insurance works well for inflating assets, not so much for deflating.
      - sgammon 4y ago
        you don't actually need to lose your coins for them to lose value... custody and value aren't the same thing.

prepend 4y ago

Stealing the keys is effectively stealing Bitcoin. Otherwise you get into semantic mumbo jumbo because Bitcoin isn’t owned by anyone, it’s just assigned to an address that is controlled by a private key, etc etc. If I steal your keys, I steal your Bitcoin. And it’s easier to steal the private keys to $40M in Bitcoin than it is to steal $40M in gold (700 kg). What I meant with my poor analogy is that if a bank is planning on blocking customers from withdrawing funds, it’s much harder to ship out the gold to their friends than to ship out Bitcoin. It’s pretty trivial to allow Bitcoin withdrawals. It’s just logistically hard to coordinate the transport of 700kg of gold out of the bank and to somewhere else.

sgammon 4y ago
yes, i agree, but that is still a distinction, is it not? i'm not making a value argument, i'm merely pointing out that possession of the currency itself is not the same as the keys required to exercise control over the currency. arguably, if we are making value statements, there are a set of similar trade-offs for physical protection of keys vs. primary material. 700kg is harder to move: that's a security feature. keys are small: that's a security feature, because they are a small O(1) surface area to protect regardless of how much value they maintain control over at any given moment. these are simply tradeoffs. it is only "easier" to steal keys if they are left unprotected. here's the enormous truck you would need to carry $40m in gold, apparently: https://www.tkingauto.com/mini-truck/rear-single-tire-truck/700kg-light-truck.html https://www.tkingauto.com/mini-truck/rear-single-tire-truck/...