3 ms·

> Install the Phoenix wallet That's trusting a third party. > get a hardware wallet like Ledger Again, trusting a third party, and one which had a data breac

by lisper 2y ago

> Install the Phoenix wallet That's trusting a third party. > get a hardware wallet like Ledger Again, trusting a third party, and one which had a data breach less than a year ago: https://www.ledger.com/blog/security-incident-report https://www.ledger.com/blog/security-incident-report And even if you want to discount that, you still have the risk of physically losing the wallet or having it stolen. > If, by hiring someone, you mean using a custodian like Kraken, Yes, that's what I mean. > then you're still solving a problem by not dealing with the traditional banking system. And, like I said, replacing it with a different problem, of dealing with and trusting a crypto custodian. > Is everyone supposed to have a personal contact from within a small bank? In a perfect world, yes. In this world, anyone running a business should have at least one such contact. > The closest compromise might be to work with credit unions instead of banks. Yes, that's also a good solution, much better than crypto IMHO.

throw101010 2y ago
> That's trusting a third party. It's not, Phoenix is a non-custodial wallet. They provide one shortly-custodial service to on-board on the Lightning Network (to provide a seamless experience, but you can do the process manually with your own node if you prefer). Once the channel on LN is open, it is non-custodial and trustless. For Hardware Wallets, plenty of other providers exist, exempt of data breaches and dodgy services unlike Ledger. For Bitcoin Coldcard comes to mind. For the risk of physically losing your keys, seems like a less random, more in your control, risk than trusting Chase Bank, see OP. > trusting a crypto custodian If that's your choice, at least you have the option to avoid this with crypto... that's one thing I will never get with people who systematically bash Bitcoin, nobody forces you to use it, it provides you optionality and full control of your assets, something traditional bank and fiat do not offer at all, you are forced by the state to pay your taxes with the currency they tell you, you are practically forced to use banking as a cash only life is pretty complicated these days... so why hate on a new option.
- lisper 2y ago
  > It's not, Phoenix is a non-custodial wallet. What difference does that make? You're still trusting them not to have put in a backdoor, and to have sufficient security in their development process that an attacker cannot insert a backdoor. Also, what happens to your keys if your smartphone fails? Is there a backup? Is that self-hosted too? Is it adequately encrypted? Unless you do everything yourself (which ultimately means running your own foundry) you cannot escape having to trust someone. It might as well be your banker. > full control of your assets Until your keys are lost or compromised. Then you are irredeemably screwed.
  - throw101010 2y ago
    At which point does this no true Scotsman stops? Controlling your keys (yes this implies a backup, all wallets guide/help you to do it these days), having access to the source code of your wallet, and being able to verify the data of Bitcoin's public and open blockchain is obviously much better than blindly trusting your bank and getting cut off from your assets at any point through NO fault of your own. > Until your keys are lost or compromised. Then you are irredeemably screwed. Yes, you have discovered the big secret everyone in crypto is "hiding"... when they say self-custody they very sneakily imply you, yourself, have custody and responsibility of your assets. If this NEW digital option is not for you, don't use it, go trust custodians. Before Bitcoin you had no such choice. In the case of banks you are also pretty screwed... just slightly less iredeemably in some cases... in the worste cases you might need to find a lawyer willing to help you, depending the amount it might just not be worth your time or the time of lawyers/judge. Unless the bank decides to hear reason magically or gets tired of your nagging like in OP's case... seem like a lot of trust and no control at all, at any point.
    - lisper 2y ago
      > having access to the source code of your wallet, and being able to verify the data of Bitcoin's public and open blockchain is obviously much better than blindly trusting your bank and getting cut off from your assets at any point through NO fault of your own. Maybe for you. Not for everyone. The vast majority of people don't have the technical chops to audit a code base. They have to trust someone else to do it for them. > slightly less iredeemably in some cases But that's significant. And if you learn how to work the human system, you can improve your odds much more than "slightly". That's a skill that many people have a much easier time picking up than coding or public-key crypto.
commercialnix 2y ago
> and one which had a data breach less than a year ago Did not impact the viability of the hardware product at all.
- lisper 2y ago
  Maybe. How can you be sure the attackers didn't insert a backdoor into Ledger's source repo?
  - commercialnix 2y ago
    The more important thing is that I don't have to be. Multi-Sig is still far less risky, complicated, and/or costly than the capriciousness or really -- let's just call it what it is -- outright criminality of fiat institutions. Some could try to explain behavior of fiat institutions as incompetence, but then we're just back at criminally stupid (courts are consistently clear that negligence is a form of criminality). By professional crypto groups and smart users, for high dollar accounts Multi-Sig with hardware wallets from diverse vendors are used. None of them are by Ledger, because Ledger's firmware is closed source. For Ledger specifically, I already do not trust Ledger. Trezor is fine.

by lisper 2y ago

throw101010 2y ago

> That's trusting a third party. It's not, Phoenix is a non-custodial wallet. They provide one shortly-custodial service to on-board on the Lightning Network (to provide a seamless experience, but you can do the process manually with your own node if you prefer). Once the channel on LN is open, it is non-custodial and trustless. For Hardware Wallets, plenty of other providers exist, exempt of data breaches and dodgy services unlike Ledger. For Bitcoin Coldcard comes to mind. For the risk of physically losing your keys, seems like a less random, more in your control, risk than trusting Chase Bank, see OP. > trusting a crypto custodian If that's your choice, at least you have the option to avoid this with crypto... that's one thing I will never get with people who systematically bash Bitcoin, nobody forces you to use it, it provides you optionality and full control of your assets, something traditional bank and fiat do not offer at all, you are forced by the state to pay your taxes with the currency they tell you, you are practically forced to use banking as a cash only life is pretty complicated these days... so why hate on a new option.

lisper 2y ago
> It's not, Phoenix is a non-custodial wallet. What difference does that make? You're still trusting them not to have put in a backdoor, and to have sufficient security in their development process that an attacker cannot insert a backdoor. Also, what happens to your keys if your smartphone fails? Is there a backup? Is that self-hosted too? Is it adequately encrypted? Unless you do everything yourself (which ultimately means running your own foundry) you cannot escape having to trust someone. It might as well be your banker. > full control of your assets Until your keys are lost or compromised. Then you are irredeemably screwed.
- throw101010 2y ago
  At which point does this no true Scotsman stops? Controlling your keys (yes this implies a backup, all wallets guide/help you to do it these days), having access to the source code of your wallet, and being able to verify the data of Bitcoin's public and open blockchain is obviously much better than blindly trusting your bank and getting cut off from your assets at any point through NO fault of your own. > Until your keys are lost or compromised. Then you are irredeemably screwed. Yes, you have discovered the big secret everyone in crypto is "hiding"... when they say self-custody they very sneakily imply you, yourself, have custody and responsibility of your assets. If this NEW digital option is not for you, don't use it, go trust custodians. Before Bitcoin you had no such choice. In the case of banks you are also pretty screwed... just slightly less iredeemably in some cases... in the worste cases you might need to find a lawyer willing to help you, depending the amount it might just not be worth your time or the time of lawyers/judge. Unless the bank decides to hear reason magically or gets tired of your nagging like in OP's case... seem like a lot of trust and no control at all, at any point.
  - lisper 2y ago
    > having access to the source code of your wallet, and being able to verify the data of Bitcoin's public and open blockchain is obviously much better than blindly trusting your bank and getting cut off from your assets at any point through NO fault of your own. Maybe for you. Not for everyone. The vast majority of people don't have the technical chops to audit a code base. They have to trust someone else to do it for them. > slightly less iredeemably in some cases But that's significant. And if you learn how to work the human system, you can improve your odds much more than "slightly". That's a skill that many people have a much easier time picking up than coding or public-key crypto.

commercialnix 2y ago

> and one which had a data breach less than a year ago Did not impact the viability of the hardware product at all.

lisper 2y ago
Maybe. How can you be sure the attackers didn't insert a backdoor into Ledger's source repo?
- commercialnix 2y ago
  The more important thing is that I don't have to be. Multi-Sig is still far less risky, complicated, and/or costly than the capriciousness or really -- let's just call it what it is -- outright criminality of fiat institutions. Some could try to explain behavior of fiat institutions as incompetence, but then we're just back at criminally stupid (courts are consistently clear that negligence is a form of criminality). By professional crypto groups and smart users, for high dollar accounts Multi-Sig with hardware wallets from diverse vendors are used. None of them are by Ledger, because Ledger's firmware is closed source. For Ledger specifically, I already do not trust Ledger. Trezor is fine.