4 ms·
Multisig, with hardware from different companies, no one of which could constitute a quorum of your keys. If you have even just a 2-of-3 keyset with one Ledger
by smeej 4y ago
Multisig, with hardware from different companies, no one of which could constitute a quorum of your keys.
If you have even just a 2-of-3 keyset with one Ledger, one Trezor, and a Coldcard, none of those companies can screw you by itself.
If you go up to 3-of-5, it's even more robust.
You can set it up yourself using FOSS like Electrum.
Or you can hire somebody like Casa[0] to get it all set up and set up the infrastructure to verify Casa App is doing exactly what it says it's doing.
[0] https://keys.casa https://keys.casa
ETA: There are lots of airgapped wallets. Coldcard, Keystone, and Passport all work airgapped.
- JonathanBeuys 4y agoHow do you create the Multisig?
- brianvli 4y agoSmart contract storing a vector of signer addresses, vector of votes and a staged transaction. Each signer has to vote yes before the smart contract executes the staged transaction.
- JonathanBeuys 4y agoAnd you do that with pencil and paper? If you use software by a 3rd party, we are back to squear one.
- brianvli 4y agoWrite the smart contract yourself and deploy it to the blockchain
- sanjayio 4y agoOP explained this, if the signing is required by multiple 3rd parties then you’re good. You can do this with pencil and paper btw and write down keys. It’s not far fetched.
- JonathanBeuys 4y agoStill sounds far fetched to me. Do these types of smart contracts exist on Bitcoin?
- smeej 4y agoThey don't need to. Multisig is built directly into the protocol for BTC. Search BTC multisig and you can learn all about it.
- JonathanBeuys 4y agoI know Bitcoin multisigs. But nobody is creating them with pencil and paper.
- smeej 4y agoI don't know what that comment was about. That would be a weird way to do it. I don't know why anyone would want to.
- smeej 4y agoI don't want to be rude, but you're not the only smart person who's thought of counterparty risks. There's tremendous incentive to all sorts of people to break the cryptographic security that secures these networks. And, thus, also incentive to stay ahead of those people.
- JonathanBeuys 4y agoI'm not very worried about the cryptographic security of the Bitcoin blockchain. I am worried that in 5 years we will learn that some hardware wallets used side channels to transfer bits of your private key out to make it easier to guess for someone who worked at the manufacturer.
- smeej 4y ago
- smeej 4y agoYou don't use 3rd party software to generate the wallet. Electrum, Specter, or another FOSS app can do it fine. The keys have 3rd-party software, but all they do is sign. Don't have a quorum from the same manufacturer. If it takes 3 signatures of 5, don't use 3 from the same company.
- JonathanBeuys 4y agoThat's what I mean with 3rd party software. If you use Electrum, you are hoping that Electrum is not buggy or malicious.
- smeej 4y agoIt's open-source. Read the code. You don't have to trust anybody.
- JonathanBeuys 4y agoNobody can read all the code of Electrum and all its dependencies and be sure it is secure. It is much too complex.
- smeej 4y agoBy that logic, nothing can ever be secure for any reason. We should all abandon the internet and go home. From the string of your comments throughout this conversation, you seem to be making some weird, "I can't do it, so nobody can do it," false equivalency. I don't know you from anybody, but I'm reasonably confident you're not more intelligent than all the highly incentivized people who have been, on the one hand, solving these problems against adversaries on the other hand who are every bit as incentivized to unsolve them. None of the points I've made have been in any way groundbreaking or insightful. They're basic "I spent my free time for a year going down the bitcoin rabbit hole" stuff. You're throwing out incredibly basic objections as though they somehow mean the whole system is an unreliable fraud, but all it's really showing is that you haven't done even a cursory overview of the topic. I'm really not trying to be rude here. People can understand code, even lots of it. People do understand it. They even understand the high-level cryptography these systems are built on. You might not, but that doesn't mean nobody does, much less that nobody can.
- encryptluks2 4y agoThe issue with hardware wallets that make them significantly risky is if you are storing wallets that contain any substantial amount of assets then it as risky as storing large sums of money in your house. If you lose that, it gets corrupted or destroyed then you've just lost those assets. There are pros and cons vs having a password-protected file that you can at least backup to whatever devices you decide.
- JonathanBeuys 4y agoThat's not the issue. You can destroy the hardware wallet. All you need to keep is the seed phrase. The issue is that the hardware wallet could be malicious. A malicious hardware wallet has multiple ways to put your funds at risk.
- smeej 4y agoMulsitig fixes this.