4 ms·
Nah. For all the talk of "one app to rule them all" (which is an awful idea) this is a step closer to that. For all it's faults, crypto has one thing right --
by jrm4 4y ago
Nah.
For all the talk of "one app to rule them all" (which is an awful idea) this is a step closer to that.
For all it's faults, crypto has one thing right -- not your keys, not your stuff. I get that doing keys/passwords is hard, but the best thing in the long run is for them to stay in the hands of the user.
And if not, the holder of the keys needs to be someone you can easily hold accountable, i.e. either fire, or arrest, or sue if they get it wrong.
- jackson1442 4y agoit is your key, it lives on your device (and is synced across devices using your cloud account if you so choose)
- webmobdev 4y agoAnd BigTech's cloud (who will have no problem sharing it with the authorities). And when all your keys are on the device, it also becomes a lot easier for the government to access all your internet accounts by getting access to the device.
- jackson1442 4y agoThey're end-to-end encrypted. Did you read the article? This is the same threat model as password managers, which are generally approved of on HN.
- jrm4 4y agoYeah, I think HN is mostly wrong about those as well. :)
- tjoff 4y agoYou can backup your password manager. You don't have to depend on the cloud for your password manager.
- webmobdev 4y agoWho cares if it is "end-to-end encrypted" if the device with all your keys / credentials can be easily used to access all your online accounts? (And no online service forces me to use a password manager).
- jrm4 4y agoIt's a nanny-ish third-party in the middle. That increases convenience, but also greatly increases your threat surface.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoA nanny-ish third party, as opposed to Coinbase, Binance, et al?
- jrm4 4y agoNo, those are the same thing. The "not your keys" thing in crypto is exactly the reason they tell you NOT to store your crypto with e.g. Coinbase/Binance. Just use them as on/off ramps, but have your own wallet.
- jackson1442 4y agoIs it nanny-ish just because it makes it simpler for end users? Fairly certain most users are not interested in managing their own key sharing infrastructure. It's built on the same technology as FIDO keys, so if you want to take control of it yourself, just use a hardware key.
- jrm4 4y agoExactly. Now, why are they doing it for free? Why take on a huge responsibility for no money, what do they get out of it?
- Scion9066 4y agoIf people use this instead of passwords, they get less compromised accounts on their services that they have to deal with.
- ThatPlayer 4y agoLess customer support for dealing with hacked accounts. Same reason places support and even push 2FA, otherwise what is their incentive to support 2FA? Fortnite even has a free dance that you can only get by enabling 2FA.
- mindslight 4y ago> For all it's faults, crypto has one thing right -- not your keys, not your stuff Erm, this isn't really an aspect of cryptocurrency, per se. It's more of a general rule that informed the initial thinking around cryptocurrency. In fact, most users of cryptocurrency seem quite content to give up cryptographic custodianship. If you went back a similar time to the nascent web/cloud/etc, you'd find plenty of similar sentiment about remote software and storage. It's just that individual autonomy loses out over time due to convenience created by the massive investment in the surveillance economy.
- jrm4 4y agoThat's a fair point, in that I should have said something like "crypto-fundamentalists." But the idea is the one I wanted to get across, and I have mostly those same feelings about remote software and storage (e.g. I tell students, priority one in your life -- if there's something digital you care about, e.g. photos, get at least one copy of them on something you can hold in your hand)