2 ms·

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 a

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/...