"Not your keys, not your coins", What's the threshold before it fails?

[Who is John Galt?]

How much of the total supply must be under the control of a Cabal before we could consider that Bitcoin has failed?

What matters is not the proportion of bitcoins controlled by corporations and governments, what matters is the ability of others to use bitcoins. If there are enough bitcoins to leave people with the choice to control their own money, then bitcoin has not failed. Yes, it's frustrating that corporations are trying to get hold of more bitcoin, I wish it could be used more by people who understand the value of bitcoin. But we have what we have, and as long as we can freely use bitcoin, it continues to do its job. We're not going to let corporations and governments get all the bitcoins, are we? Bitcoin will not fail, must not fail!

[1714752536]

1714752536

[1714752536]

1714752536

[1714752536]

1714752536

[1714752536]

1714752536

[1714752536]

1714752536

[bitbollo]

In Italy we already have a banking service that offers storage (and direct purchase and sale) - Hype - Banca Sella.

Storing some sats on these services (a sort of hot wallet) is an excellent option for everyday expenses, or simply for exchanging FIAT/BTC and vice versa.... entrusting all saving to a product of this kind obviously not....

I believe that these services are always necessary to increase the diffusion of btc among "ordinary" people.

[WatChe]

There is A LOT of inertia involved here. For a VERY long time we have been telling people to keep money in banks, since they are insured and regulated. We have been telling people to have their brokerages hold their stock certificates instead of getting physical ones sent to them. We have been telling people to have the appropriate entity hold their bonds be it the bank / the brokerage / the government instead of keeping physical ones ourselves. Now, we are telling people that they should ignore all of that for crypto and do it themselves.

Overcoming that inertia is going to take a while. Educating people is going to take a while too.
-Dave

I think we must not worry about such centralized storages as they will vanish with time if people get to know the reality. Bitcoin was created as a peer to peer cash transfer that eliminate middlemen completely. Moving your bitcoin to such centralized storages is like moving towards fiat based financial system. These exchanges have completely destroyed the original concept of Bitcoin.

[darkangel11]

Let's pretend that pie chart also represents the rest of the world

Fortunately for the world, it doesn't. In countries with relatively long history of stable currencies and solvent banking (unless you point to extreme cases like Lehman Brothers) people will tend to trust banks. It's a totally different case in countries with unstable governments, hyperinflation (Venezuela, Argentina, Zimbabwe), or countries where banks are protected by the military and moving funds abroad is difficult (China, Russia).

I wouldn't trust a bank more than I have to, but if you guys do, go ahead and risk your coins.

[Nwada001]

I believe most people actually like learning from the hard way, until some people have a personal experience regarding a particular thing they don't buy the idea of the masses regarding safety, until they have to notice that thing that they are being told will be the prepacaution of trusting a third party with their holdings, if the pie chart is true and if it's being calculated using a real data and not just assumptions base on results collected from few people who were ask the question, then I can say that this is as a result of people having a strong hope on the banking sectors more than they believe in their self and this could be because of the insurance which back up the banking sectors with hope that anything that happen to their coin the bank will make provision for replacement. (But I doubt the accuracy of that data.)

forgetting the fact that the same bank can also freeze those funds, give them some unnecessary excuses for why they can't withdraw their funds when they need them the most, which is one thing I believe Bitcoin is against, as one needs to be in control, not just in control but full control of when they can spend and when they want to hold.

[ZAINmalik75]

On what studies are the results based on which this pie chart is based? How many people participated in this survey? Who conducted this survey? It would be nice to see a link to the source.

I was also thinking the same as the many platforms used to show many stats, and we all know those stats are also not 100% accurate as many people who did the survey are not necessary users of crypto assets. As many only complete the survey of such questions for the sake of money.

But if the survey is not for reward, then the number of people taking part in it also depends on whether the numbers of those people are too low in relation to the people who use it.

I think this statistic is shared just out of curiosity, but still, I think many people who are into crypto really care about decentralisation and centralization, and they really care about their coins, which is why they must agree with the statement If not your keys, then not your coins.

[famososMuertos]

In any case, this is a projection of today, of the system that persists, because it should be different, in fact many of these people will not reach 2040-2050, the users who will adopt bitcoin are the future generation.

Adoption is not a short-term issue, but regardless of that, the transition is always supported by users, that is, the real change will not come from those who are now, it is the generation of relief that understands and without remorse, than a traditional banking has a one-sided benefit.

[LoyceMobile]

I always assumed the majority of Bitcoin "owners" currently holds their Bitcoin on an exchange. If they move from largely unregulated companies registered in the Cayman Islands to regulated brokers in their own country, I consider that an improvement.

[Cricktor]

I trust only the statistics that I've forged myself. 

OP's chart seems to be rather old news from a SurveyMonkey poll from January 6-7^th, 2021.

METHODOLOGY
This poll was conducted by SurveyMonkey on Jan. 6-7, 2021 among a national sample of 2,184 US consumers. Respondents for this survey were selected from the nearly 3 million people who take surveys on the SurveyMonkey platform each day. Data have been weighted for age, race, sex, education, and geography using the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey to reflect the demographic composition of the United States. This poll has a margin of error of +/- 2.1 percentage points.

Link to above PDF via https://nydig.com/research/nydig-bitcoin-banking-survey. The presented survey is more like a shiny sell flyer and it's not detailed enough to assess how they come to their statements. Based on what NYDIG represents, I'm not surprised.

You have to gain quite some knowledge about Bitcoin to realize and embrace why self-custody is important and why you shouldn't trust others. Safe self-custody is far from easy if you want to do it right with as few single points of failure as possible and that scares average John and Jane Doe. They don't see themselves as prey of banks. Well, let them keep their illusion. Banks are good to make you feel like a customer while they gladly take the best of yours.

I would see some improvement like LoyceMobile stated, too. Some mostly unregulated companies hurt the crypto space sooner or later more than they benefit it, been there, seen it.

[Z-tight]

what’s really the essence of moving you crypto access to a bank? What’s the whole sense of decentralization then?

For the same reason people stored their funds in ftx, Celsius, mt.Gox, etc and they lost it when they collapsed, but majority of the same people are still storing their funds in exchanges like Binance today, and they believe the situation is different because cz said funds are SaFu and Binance is too big to fail .

I mean there are so many ways people can make sure that their assets are safe and so there’s definitely no essence or need to go move your Bitcoin to any sort of bank Storage.

Tell that to crypto services who give people the impression that they can't store their 12 or 24 words seed phrase, cz emphasized the other time that 99% of funds in self custody will be lost, sure, Binance is the safe place for their funds , and Ledger want people to believe their seed phrase has to be split in three for it to be perfectly safe, too many crypto services are sending the wrong message to people who don't know where to get the right info about BTC and how it should work and they are doing it to earn money for themselves.

That would be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard in my life because that I think will be transferring the control and circulation of Bitcoin into the hands of an organization or even a person, Bitcoin said would no longer be so different from our normal fiat currencies. That’s so ridiculous if you ask me.

No. If people want to store their BTC in the bank or anywhere, it does not affect BTC in itself, it's their keys, so their coins. It is their coins that the bank or centralized exchange controls, and not mine that i have in my Electrum wallet.

[serjent05]

There are 81% of Bitcoin owners who, probably because of the lack of Bitcoin Education or laziness, say that they'll move their coins to their bank's "crypto storage" if it was available. It will not be a good future, if true.



Let's pretend that pie chart also represents the rest of the world, and that a large portion of the supply has actually been "deposited" under the control of centralized entities. How much of the total supply must be under the control of a Cabal before we could consider that Bitcoin has failed?

This action entirely goes against the reason Bitcoin was created.  As we know Bitcoin was created because Satoshi thinks that there is a need to have individuals store their own funds and there is no need for them to involve third-party financial institutions with their transactions.

Although we cannot deny these people their rights to do with their Bitcoin stash, people relying on banks or custodial services to keep their Bitcoin stashed is a failure in terms of Bitcoin purpose.

[worle1bm]

Most people realize this after they have lost money that if they are giving someone else their access they are already losing funds at the moment but still we see lots of such things happening with exchanges and still they find it secure options to store their funds in them but at last people need to realize it and learn more about self custody.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Yeah, we know it, because if everyone was some kind of economic genius we would not have to clean any mess right now, there would be no need for Bitcoin, and fiat money would work perfectly!

Nah. Fiat works as is, it's controlled by a few people, no matter how geniuses we were, it fundamentally works in favor of the few.

But since it's not the case, what are you/we going to do?

Absolutely nothing. I can't, nor do I have the time, to try and influence a dumb person's decision. "A fool and his money are soon parted", what an insightful quote. Provably true, with all those exchanges shutting down, taking people's money with them.

People will keep investing just for gains in $

I'm also investing for gains, but I find the approach of keeping your keys easier and safer. It's objectively more difficult and less secure to keep your coins in some unregulated entity, agreeing into having your money taken in case they're caught to running fractional reserve banking, or getting hacked, or just gambling with your money on shitcoins etc.

[Wind_FURY]

I always assumed the majority of Bitcoin "owners" currently holds their Bitcoin on an exchange. If they move from largely unregulated companies registered in the Cayman Islands to regulated brokers in their own country, I consider that an improvement.

Which doesn't make it "OK", right? Not your keys, not your coins. The exchange, being a centralized entity, could decide not to give anyone their Bitcoins back, AND users will be depending on their network for the safety and security of our property, like PayPal users. Therefore the question, how much of the total supply must be held in centralized vaults, under their control, before we can actually say that Bitcoin is failing? What is the threshold?

I'm like a broken record, asking this challenging question over and over again because all of the debates/discussions presented are mere unintentional-strawmen that's taking the topic out of context.

[LoyceV]

I always assumed the majority of Bitcoin "owners" currently holds their Bitcoin on an exchange. If they move from largely unregulated companies registered in the Cayman Islands to regulated brokers in their own country, I consider that an improvement.

Which doesn't make it "OK", right?

Of course But I trust my stock broker a lot more than, say, Binance. It depends on your threat level: if you fear your own government will take your money, then indeed storing your money at your local bank is a bad idea.

Not your keys, not your coins. The exchange, being a centralized entity, could decide not to give anyone their Bitcoins back

That's my point: a local bank can't do that without reason, and even if they do, at least I know who I'm dealing with. I wouldn't know who to call to send a lawyer after a guy named "CZ", who hides behind a shell company on the Caymen Islands.

AND users will be depending on their network for the safety and security of our property, like PayPal users.

I wish I could be my own stock broker, keeping shares at home without paying anyone "for safe keeping".

Therefore the question, how much of the total supply must be held in centralized vaults, under their control, before we can actually say that Bitcoin is failing? What is the threshold?

I'm like a broken record, asking this challenging question over and over again because all of the debates/discussions presented are mere unintentional-strawmen that's taking the topic out of context.

Unfortunately, I don't know. Most gold is stored in centralized locations, and I wouldn't call the gold market a failure.

If you Google how many people own Bitcoin, the answer varies but it's usually a couple hundred million. But there are only 48 million funded Bitcoin addresses, which means the large majority (thinks they) own Bitcoin on an exchange. It could very well be 80% already, which is the same percentage you mentioned in the OP.

[DooMAD]

Which doesn't make it "OK", right? Not your keys, not your coins. The exchange, being a centralized entity, could decide not to give anyone their Bitcoins back, AND users will be depending on their network for the safety and security of our property, like PayPal users. Therefore the question, how much of the total supply must be held in centralized vaults, under their control, before we can actually say that Bitcoin is failing? What is the threshold?

I'm like a broken record, asking this challenging question over and over again because all of the debates/discussions presented are mere unintentional-strawmen that's taking the topic out of context.

I'd argue it's not about the supply at all.

Based on the premise Bitcoin was designed with the intent of there being one sender and one recipient, with no middlemen in between;  In order to still qualify as a peer-to-peer network, then there simply needs to be at least two individual users transacting who retain control over their own funds.

It's a threshold I'm quite certain we'll never reach.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Well, I am honestly not surprised , cus if today , with the whole awareness of "not your keys, not your crypto" , Bitcoin investors still leave bitcoin's worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in their centralized exchange trading account, I don't see any reason why we should be surprised that a greater number of American citizens opt they will deposit their Bitcoin in the bank if the option is made available.
If you ask me though, this is purely as a result of laziness, the fact we can not deny is that, decentralization comes with lots of responsibilities, you have to be responsible for your wallet up keep and security of both the wallet software and the device the wallet is installed on, for those who are not into hardware wallet, this and many more are things some people might feel very lazy to look after , so they don't mind giving a third party the chance to look after this things for them of given the chance ..

[sunsilk]

Let us say that it represents the entire world and that survey has been made for many respondents, being in 81% was already a lot of percentage for those people that are trusting the cold storage of the banks instead of keeping it on their own.

I guess we still got some faith on the other side that won't move their bitcoins and will eventually change when some news about hacks do happen.

As long as there's 1% or more that are going in the right path, we can't say that bitcoin has failed.

[so98nn]

I wouldn't be bothered with the data that is not representing the entire world on a practical basis. Plus there is no way this data can be considered true because there is not even 1-2% of the world's population that has been involved with Bitcoin for 10+ years. I am definitely sure this means nothing with the study that has already been conducted. There were many studies like this that are coming up front and peeps are making unreal assumptions about it. If peeps are not actually involved with Bitcoin then how could they possibly say positive things about it?

Let me also add that if there are only such low number of the population that is directly involved with Bitcoin then also we have a mega moment throughout the world with many government getting scared about decentralization. Just imagine what would happen in the case of 50% population getting involved?

Try the survey at that time. It would bring out different set of results for sure.

[franky1]

Which doesn't make it "OK", right? Not your keys, not your coins. The exchange, being a centralized entity, could decide not to give anyone their Bitcoins back, AND users will be depending on their network for the safety and security of our property, like PayPal users. Therefore the question, how much of the total supply must be held in centralized vaults, under their control, before we can actually say that Bitcoin is failing? What is the threshold?

I'm like a broken record, asking this challenging question over and over again because all of the debates/discussions presented are mere unintentional-strawmen that's taking the topic out of context.

I'd argue it's not about the supply at all.

Based on the premise Bitcoin was designed with the intent of there being one sender and one recipient, with no middlemen in between;  

says the centralist guy that LOVES promoting that everyone should shift over to a subnetwork that uses middlemen(routers), leaving only a few people left on the network doing real peer-to-peer control of their own funds

In order to still qualify as a peer-to-peer network, then there simply needs to be at least two individual users transacting who retain control over their own funds.

It's a threshold I'm quite certain we'll never reach.

yep we know you only want a few elitist people left using the actual bitcoin network, where its just the elitist faction of the economy swapping THEIR reserves. we all know your mindset and manifesto. just a shame you are trying to teach centralism/offramping as a feature everyone should use under the false pretense that bitcoin wont work without it.

funny part is the subnetwork you want everyone to use is already failing its self control promise even with less than 5000btc network total liquidity. where subnetwork people are now promoted(by you and your chums) to hand funds to a custodian(wallet manager) and then they be given(by centralised key holder) faked, unconfirmed msat balance(inbound balance) AKA factory channel feature