Custody with someone you trust is better than Custody with a faceless corporation and probably also better than self-custody for non-technical people.
Thread
Login to reply
Replies ()
Things are in the works.
Disagree. Money is non-custodial by definition. For example, there is significant difference between entrusting a car and entrusting money.
Having someone you trust feed you is better that having a faceless corporation feed you and probably better than feeding yourself for non-health experts.
Seems a little absurd from my perspective, but I would be a health expert in this scenario.
Although I see pretty much every real health expert saying "You can do this yourself by taking these steps"
So maybe the onus is on the bitcoiners to teach the laymen better than the faceless corporations, eh?
It might be better under one condition: they live physically close together and all withdrawals are made in person. Otherwise it's strictly worse than self custody because it requires authentication using a secret.
Get competent enough to trust yourself.
Don't trust, verify
Good enough is better than the best despot.
I wish you could say that universally, but that's just not practical. Think about a 10 year old or an 80 year old. Do you really trust them to not lose their keys? Competence is ideal, of course, but my experience tells me that self-custody is not something most people will do, and maybe even can do.
💜🫂
A 10 yr old you trust with a small amount, that can be lost. Most 80 yr-olds will need trusted assistance, but still could self custody their savings, even if it's just a piece of paper. Today we probably don't have good enough schemes for that, but we should create them.
Saying 100% of your stash should be self custodied is like saying this:
You should have no home fire insurance. Because that insurance company may go bust. Instead, you should be competent enough to ensure no fire ever starts in your house.
Your analogies likens custody with having insurance. Foolish
That is exactly what it is.
Insurance is not some mumbo jumbo legal definition. Insurance is an individuals cost-benefit analysis of their situation.
Lets say I have made 100x on my BTC. Moving say 10% of my stash to a custodian protects a portion of my wealth from an attack / mishap with my own seed phrase storage. If the custodian goes bust, meh. I still got my 90% of the best performing asset.
And it helps me sleep better, so less stress, and so less likely to fumble the seed phrase...
Diversification of stash location. Not a bad choice TBH. But corporations are not the only option. You can custody part of your stack with trusted family members. You can also custody some of their stack in return. Ensuring each other against catastrophe without involving strangers.
Unfortunately I agree. I think the idea of asking normies to keep track of a 12 word seed and ALSO prevent anyone else from seeing it -- it's just not realistic. And the real danger is that someone convinces them to reveal the seed to them.... I'm on lots of Telegram channels where that is literally happening EVERY WEEK. A newbie shows up, gets contacted by scammers via DM, and the newbie gives the scammer the 12 word seed. These aren't stupid people, it's just very, very hard to remember or understand that you need to keep the seed secret.
👎 Making laziness okay is not the path to strength.
Horrible idea.
Trust is fleeting.
Share the base wallet key among multiple trusted family members with everyone having the wallet loaded onto hardware. Each family member has their own wallets within their own passphrases. 50% of each of their funds held in their own passphrase, the rest split among the wallets held by family members who also store some of their balances on each others passphrases.
You each help each other secure your Bitcoin and reduce the chance of anyone having catastrophic failure.
How Jimmy the banker app coming? This sounds like progress