(Fact, not FUD) Every BTC address is at risk of theft, especially the biggest..

[ProfWigSlipper]

Edit: I made a couple corrections  & clarifications in the 2nd post
``````````````````````````
``````````````````````````````````````


(Fact, not FUD)  Every BTC address is at risk of theft, especially the biggest ones.

Note: If you disagree with my main point, please be civil, angry a-holes only make this community look worse than it already does to the outside world.

Fact #1:
"In Bitcoin, a private key is a 256-bit number, which can be represented one of several ways...."
Source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Private_key

Fact #2a:
Any private key can be guessed/tested by a computer/super-computer with nothing better to do than steal your BTC.

Fact #2b: There is no need to respond with the famous info-graphic re: Bitcoin is backed by the power of math
here it is:





Fact #2c:
Any private key can be guessed/tested by a computer/super-computer with nothing better to do than steal your BTC, given over 10,000 lifetimes of chances..

Now the sh^t gets real:
Most addresses are safe because the odds of theft are extremely low, but the theoretical risk of guessing a "256-bit number, which can be represented one of several ways" does exist, and if you think that is incorrect please tell me why.  


Fact, not FUD

Two Options, please choose one:
* Go the "nerd route" and try to convince people that in fact BTC is to be considered ~100% secure.
* Try some common sense:
(for example)
How about a 100% secure wallet (i.e. 99.9999% secure  ) where the user makes a simple choice:
All transactions under ___amount are "good to go", at any time, and everything OVER  ____amount are delayed until a extra layer of approval is submitted?

Any honest, non-violent thoughts to share?  
ps Please see the edits in post #2

[1715203550]

1715203550

[1715203550]

1715203550

[1715203550]

1715203550

[ProfWigSlipper]

Edit:
A "secure wallet" with transaction limits obviously fails if the hacked private key is imported into another wallet. Perhaps vital security related "user defined limits" could be added at the P2P level?

The main point: No private key is 100% safe from super-computer hacking and that is a fact.

[DooMAD]

How about a 100% secure wallet (i.e. 99.9999% secure  ) where the user makes a simple choice:
All transactions under ___amount are "good to go", at any time, and everything OVER  ____amount are delayed until a extra layer of approval is submitted?

Or just use multisig, so that every transaction has to have an extra layer of approval.  Bitcoin is as secure as you're willing to make it, if you put the effort in.  

Also, the greater likelihood isn't a brute force cracking of the private key, it's things like compromised environments for hot wallets, human error like forgotten passwords or trusting the wrong online service, or hardware failures like failed backup drives.  You're far more prone to lose funds from things like keyloggers, malware or a software vulnerability than you are from supercomputers and the infinitesimally small chance they might guess your key.

[ProfWigSlipper]

...
Or just use multisig, so that every transaction has to have an extra layer of approval.  Bitcoin is as secure as you're willing to make it, if you put the effort in.  
....

I tried to give you merit, but my tank is empty, thanks for good info.