"Not your keys, not your coin"
We've all heard that repeated countless times, and it's a phrase that in a lot of ways truly does embody one of the core principles of bitcoin -- absolute sovereignty over your personal finances.
This spirit is also the driving factor behind 20% of the current bitcoin supply being estimated as "lost" -- holding your own keys exposes your coin to the risk of user error.
"Not your keys, not your coin" is not a one-size-fits-all ethos. A hardware wallet isn't right for everyone. If we want mass adoption, then we're going to have to accept at some point that holding your coin with a third party custodian can be safe. The population en masse simply aren't cut out for managing this on their own -- for them convenience is key and the simple truth is that holding with a custodian is more user-friendly.
Is the risk higher or is it just different? I suppose that depends on the user. There is inherent risk in either method.
EDIT: Holding you own keys is awesome and one of the greatest aspects of bitcoin. I'm not trying to diminish that. I just wanted to open a discussion.
If I could rename the title it would be "The case against (always) holding your own keys"
"Not your keys, not your coin" will always remain an important lesson in educating new users on bitcoin's power to be a completely independent system of money, but it doesn't need to be the gospel in helping new users enter the space. It's an ideal that isn't feasible for all users.
EDIT 2: Try and read some of my comment replies before downvoting. I think I may have managed to make some points a little bit more eloquently down there than I was able to in the original post. Hence these edits. So read those, and then downvote away :D
[link] [comments]
No comments:
Post a Comment