-

[-]

-

[FreeMoney]

Don't forget to update instructions on how to convert it to cash as some people may prefer hard cash especially if you die within the next $10 years. The messages of people asking how to get in will be nothing compared to people asking how to get out.

A+ freudian

[-]

-

[-]

-

[goatpig]

I am kinda startled too. This is not about what is legal. Yes, I am talking about crime here.

Even nowadays third parties run with entrusted money if you just plain give it to them (often enough); its called theft or embazzlement... happens quite often. To me it seems you want to get rid of safety practices that are quite usual nowadays. We dont keep large amounts of cash lying around (even with the numbers written down). Bitcoins are somewhat more difficult to run with than plain cash (though more easy than cash in a bank account), but still. Actually, running away with bitcoins is trivial (and safe), spending them is a problem. But, there will be ways to launder bitcoins just as much as there are ways to launder money today.
Besides, I hope the third party doesnt publicize his business or he becomes a target himself. Lawyers who regularly have wills with password information and their client address book? Well, as a thief, I will certainly get into that lawyers office. (as a thief would nowadays if i knew sbd kept the safe-numbers of wealthy clients, yummy).

What you are suggesting to do with bitcoins, i dont think you would do with dollars.

A part of the problem arise because i consider it as a problem almost everybody will have to solve. Right now, if you have a safe with cash at home you might give your lawyer the number (i wouldnt), but part of the protection is that nobody knows your lawyer has the number (written down somewhere, i suppose) If that were commonplace... With everybody needing to find a solution for this problem... i wouldnt give my password to my lawyer, all i am saying.

Another problem is that its difficult for authorities to prove who transferred the bitcoins away (unless sbd starts spending). You transfer bitcoins to a new address and let them lie... The old owner will not ever get them back (unlike with real cash which can often be retrieved if traced), bitcoins can be traced but not retrieved... with actual cash or bank orders you can usually connect them to a person. I have trouble figuring out how you can pinpoint the lawyer as the guy who transferred your bitcoins to a new address (if he keeps them there and doesnt spend).

All i am saying is: Wallets with lots of bitcoins need to be secure. Encryption is way better than any way to secure money/cash currently (vulnerable to extortion though), but if fails when you die. So you have to find ways to securely pass on the password. And for that I considered various options, some quite comparable to safeguarding valuables today (where similar concerns about theft exist), some different because we are talking about a password that is only useful with the encrypted wallet (you have two parts, only together they are useful for a criminal - which is nice feature for this purpose).

But you seem to think you are protected by laws .... even if you make it easy for the criminals. *shrug* Sometimes works, sometimes it doesnt. I lock my door and do not rely on trespassing laws.

You problem seems to be at en ethical level rather than technological. There is 2 ways to pass something on to a second party as you die. Give it to that party straight up, expecting them to respect your wishes, which you openly advertise against, or use a 3rd party. Your problem is that you refuse to trust both hoping to solve the problem by involving neither. There might be a technological solution to that problem, like let's say email services that offer you the possibility to delay sending of the email unless you log in the account and push that date further. You can use a combination of several of these services to ensure both wallet and relevant passwords + data will eventually be sent to your heir unless you're present to prevent it.

Nevertheless, my point was that there exist services for such purpose already, and everyday people die, passing their wealth safely onto their dear ones. Involving a password isn't cause enough to refute the strength of the existing system. Several banks will require you to fill a pass key on top of having the keys to a deposit box before you get clearance to the box room. And life still goes on nevertheless. I'm not funding my trust in this system because of the local jurisdiction protection of private property, simply because it is a business, and a profitable one at that, which implies customers are getting what they're asking for. I find your distrust of the actual system a little disturbing considering it works fine, but then again you are entitled to your own opinion about what is trustworthy or not. Then again, to call it a "problem" seems far fetched to me.

[-]

-

[Raize]

0110, what you talk about was the very first thing I considered when I went to purchase my first Bitcoin. I imagine any serious investor was thinking the same thing.

[Alex Beckenham]

Sorry didn't read the whole thread yet, but one could just get (fiat) life insurance, to the value of their bitcoins.

Then when they die, yes the bitcoins are lost forever (transferring value to the other bitcoin holders), but your spouse still gets a payout (in fiat) equivalent to their worth.

Spouse could then use that to buy bitcoins if desired.

[rezin777]

Give half the password to the loved ones, put the other half in the SD box, safe, will, whatever.

[goatpig]

Gods, i am falling asleep, but a reply is needed.

Worst offender: quoting you:"Several banks will require you to fill a pass key on top of having the keys to a deposit box before you get clearance to the box room. And life still goes on nevertheless." The code (if used) is usually not known by the heirs. A key is often missing. But this is no problem. Key difference: With proper documentation of death and inheritance the box is opened (drilled if need be) and the contents given over. That is impossible with an encrypted wallet and one of the key reason i come off as paranoid here.
If you read my original post again ... you will note that i do talk about trust, yes, but its a secondary issue. My main concern was always losing the passport (death of the persons you gave the password to, the same persons losing the password, etc.). Only in the discussions after that the talk centered mostly on trust/crime. The main advantage of the safe deposit box (which i preferred as an option, although i admitted that family/lawyers and even bank accounts! were valid options) is that there is a physical representation of the password there, with access quite secure even with the keys/codes to the box lost. (because the bank keeps the contracts)

("giving it to the party straigth up"): Read the paragraphs starting with "First, " and "Second, " again... There is nothing about trust there. Even trusting my heirs completely (which i do mine), there still significant problems. I gave my daughter my password. We both die in a car crash. How is my niece going to get the money? Should I also give her the password? Ive been in the same car with the both of them! How far do i spread it around before the password its beyond my control (simply because of negligence, not malicious intent)

Those are the 2 most important points I think (and related). We got on a tangent (trust/crime), which was never my main point (although it can be a problem and therefor should not be neglected; i wanted to list the problems thoroughly). My main point was losing the password in the process of getting it across. Crime comes into play once you try to solve the first problem by giving the password to ever more people.

I'm sleepy too here, but this need response as well.

I've laid that problem down already. If you can't trust the process of transmitting your wealth to a second party, then you have to trust a third, which you are reluctant to as well. If you think the deposit box is good enough to hold your wealth, since it can be accessed with proper proof of heirloom and your death, then don't encrypt the wallet in it. Somehow the fact that you can encrypt your wallet got you thinking you should keep it encrypted at all times. If proper protection can be provided without the need for encryption, why go all bananas over it?

As for technological solutions, I already provided you with one. And I can come up with more if need be. Running a piece of software upon your prolonged absence is hardly a technological barrier.

[Vladimir]

Why not get two safe deposit boxes at different institutions than? One for the data and one for the password. The security game is risk assessment. You draw a list of risks. Than you come up with controls which mitigate those risks. That's it. Maybe you need more redundancy. Than 4 safe deposit boxes it is, 2 for password, 2 for data. Your mileage may vary.

[-]

-

[goatpig]

Depending on the way the software is run... the trivial implementation would have the password stored somewhere in plaintext? (to send it along after some time) That does seems kind of weird, i could leave my wallet at home unencrypted doing that (almost)... i might just be misunderstanding your proposal.

Off to bed, hear from you tomorrow (well todays, its 4 am ).

Since your password has to be passed down upon your death, the fair assumption is that it has to be maintained "accessible" somewhere to be passed upon. What is protecting your password in this situation is the inability to link it to the wallet through whatever process while it successfully unlock the funds if acquired by your heir. I agree with the general proposal that the wallet should be distributed to all the interested parties, and the password delivered upon death, makes things much simpler. Now there is several angles to approach this, anywhere from sending the funds directly to the distributed wallet or simply a password giving access to the encrypted data. But first we need to discuss what kind of service provides enough discretion while maintaining sufficient level of functionality.

[BeeCee1]

If you're worried about heirs stealing from each other you could make multiple wallet files and give each of them one encrypted wallet prior to your death, then put the passwords in the safe/safety deposit box (or vise-versa). Since each heir would only have their password they can't steal from each other. You can keep all the wallets zipped up and encrypted with a password that only you know so you can access them if needed.

If you stick with a single wallet, you could keep it encrypted in your safe then put the password in the safety deposit box.  You still have access to it for your spending needs when alive but your heirs get access when you die.  You could also put an unencrypted copy of the wallet in the safety deposit box but you'd have to make sure you update it occasionally so it doesn't run out of the pre-generated supply of keys.

I agree w/ one of the other posters that you'd also want to give them written instructions about how to access it, how to sell them, etc.

[-]

-

[TTBit]

a) tattoo the password on the bottom of your foot.

b) How long of a password would I need to make it so it took a computer a year or so to crack? Put the data in a SDB, tell the lawyer that the data needs to be cracked, its a 20 char A-z password. When computers get 2x as fast, encrypt the encrypted file with another 20 char A-z.

[Alex Beckenham]

but it has got nothing to do with passing on your bitcoins; you will still need a way to do that.

Exactly, because I care more about passing on the value of my bitcoins, rather than the bitcoins themselves.

[Sandoz]

Nobody mentioned this option:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamir's_Secret_Sharing

It basically allows you to share n parts of the key. You just need some of those (not all) to decrypt the wallet, which means you could give different parts of the key to lawyers, family members etc. If a few are lost, the wallet could still be decrypted!

[bcearl]

Whats the justification for the concept of inheritance in the first place?