2 ms·
> Keeping the wallet on your own decive sounds smart, until you realize that your own device isn't very secure either, and every bit as much an amateur environm
by oelmekki 13y ago
> Keeping the wallet on your own decive sounds smart, until you realize that your own device isn't very secure either, and every bit as much an amateur environment as the worst exchanges.
You can't compare both. Am I saying that with a local wallet you have absolute security from everything possible in present and future ? Obviously not. But it's certainly not as easy (and that's an euphemism) to steal money put on 1M people computers than on one or a bunch of servers.
- mcv 13y agoCriminals can reach a lot of computers with viruses, trojans, botnets, that sort of stuff. And if they know that a significant number of PCs contain very real money, you can bet they're going to try a lot harder than they have so far. The more attacks can be distributed, the less the advantage of distributed wallets. And then it comes back to real security. So far, real banks seems to be pretty good holding on to our accounts. Even if they squander our money on risky speculation, at least our accounts aren't being emptied on a massive scale. If bitcoin wants to truly challenge traditional money, then its financial service providers need to be held to the same standard.
- Bjartr 13y agoThat's what paper wallets are for.