Security or Ease of Use — Your Choice?

[payagold]

Hi everyone,

I’ve been thinking about this for a while and wanted to get some real user opinions.

When choosing a crypto platform or service, what matters more to you personally — strong security or ease of use?

Some platforms focus heavily on security, but can feel complicated to use. Others are very simple and user-friendly, but some people may question how secure they really are.

From your experience:
- Which factor has had more impact on your long-term decisions?
- Have you ever switched platforms just because of poor security or a confusing interface?

I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences.

[NotATether]

Don't even bother using a platform if they don't take security seriously.

[payagold]

Absolutely, security should always be a top priority, even if the platform is very user-friendly.

[Somegory]

Security any time any day, this is the biggest issue we have in crypto space, nothing comes close.

[payagold]

Exactly, security is always the first priority in crypto. Thanks for sharing your view.

[SFR10]

- Have you ever switched platforms just because of poor security or a confusing interface?

I've done both in the past, but the latter one only when I was still a newcomer to this field and couldn't find proper documentation on how certain features of those platforms worked at the time.
^{- The main issue with unsecured platforms is that it'll be almost impossible to get back your funds if something bad were to happen, but with a confusing interface, you can still retain users by releasing tutorials and stuff like that.}

[Yamane_Keto]

When choosing a crypto platform or service, what matters more to you personally — strong security or ease of use?

How can we ensure the security of platforms if employees are making mistakes like South Korean crypto firm accidentally sends $44 billion in bitcoins to users or that the founder's son transfer millions of dollars from a government institution, as happened with John Daghita Son to a USA service man Steals $40m from nation's bitcoin

Decentralized platforms don't look any better. it's best to withdraw funds and trade in small amounts.

[Pmalek]

It's not a rule but it's usually true: the easier something is to use and gain access to, the less secure it is. Ease of use and security are on opposite ends. When one increases, the other often decreases.

Nothing would be easier than to register on a popular CEX, reach the highest level of KYC verification they have, buy your bitcoin & crypto there, keep it on the exchange, etc., etc. Ease of use and convenience is at a maximum. However, the exchange controls your bitcoin, not you. And they have your personal information on file. That's data that can leak and end up in the wrong hands. Your security, control and privacy are bad to non-existent. 

No thanks. Not for me.

[EarnOnVictor]

Some platforms focus heavily on security, but can feel complicated to use. Others are very simple and user-friendly, but some people may question how secure they really are.

I thought it was DEX and CEX when I saw your headline, but never knew it was a question of security and interface. Well, you can't emphatically decide on that. Some platforms could be complicated with a bad/heavy interface and still have poor security. And some could be the opposite, and still have better security. And this can happen to them in the reverse as well.

My take: You don't just security through complexity.

From your experience:
- Which factor has had more impact on your long-term decisions?
- Have you ever switched platforms just because of poor security or a confusing interface?

Both are equally important to me. And are must in my long-term cooperation with any online platforms.

[ABCbits]

Security comes first, when money (along with personal data) is involved. But from user side, we have limited capability to guess actual platform security. Aside from 2FA feature, forcing user to verify withdraw on their email, prevent hacker from brute force unlimited times or other things we can check by ourselves, we have no idea how they secure their server or our coins.

[GNhutao]

Security builds trust.
Ease of use builds retention.
Long-term, security wins.

[joniboini]

- Which factor has had more impact on your long-term decisions?
- Have you ever switched platforms just because of poor security or a confusing interface?

Is there a business with poor security features nowadays? As in, no 2FA support, no complicated password support, etc. If we're speaking about database leaks, then I don't think anyone is immune to that. We shouldn't rely too much on them to begin with. If it's about hacking, then I'll also leave them if they got hacked quite often and can't recover users fund.

As far as I can remember, even in my early days of interacting with crypto, most platforms I've registered support 2FA in one form or another. Speaking of interface, I don't remember using a service with a poor UI that I can't navigate properly, either. I guess it depends on each person, but I think most of them are okay nowadays.

[XZERO1]

Highly depends on what kind of crypto service or platform are we talking about...

For example: is it a platform for trading or it's a service people use to buy goods using crypto for payment? and how much money on average is expected to be held in the service or platform in question?

These are some of the questions that must be answered so that we know what should we prioritize

Which one of the following instances describes your platform/service the best?:

1. You are building a platform or a service that is sort of a marketplace or people will be using as an interface to buy goods, in this case ease of use should be prioritized as too many complicated security steps will ruin the experience at the cost of security, people are expected to hold smaller amount of funds in such accounts anyway, and additionally you could either limit how much can be deposited or make extra/better security measures optional.

2. You are building a platform/service that has something to do with holding/investing crypto or trading, things start to become very different in this case and since your users are way more likely to keep more funds in such accounts then security should be prioritize much more than ease of use and even certain better/more security steps to access funds should be enforced and NOT be optional.

[Rikafip]

I like how everyone keeps saying that security is the number one priority. But in reality, there is an example of an exchange that is very secure and still not very popular and that is Bisq. People here have been recommending it for years, yet only a small number of people actually use it and (imho) the main reason is that it is not very user friendly, especially for beginners.

Of course, security should always come first but if a platform is too hard to understand or use, most people will simply avoid it. Good security is important but without certain level of ease of use, it will not mean much in practice. Balance is the key.

[Pmalek]

I like how everyone keeps saying that security is the number one priority. But in reality, there is an example of an exchange that is very secure and still not very popular and that is Bisq. People here have been recommending it for years, yet only a small number of people actually use it and (imho) the main reason is that it is not very user friendly, especially for beginners.

One big problem of Bisq, in my opinion, is that it requires traders to stay online for the entire duration of a trade. You can't just submit your buy/sell order and go about your business. The software has to keep running for orders to be visible in the order book. If someone accepts and suggests a trade, you have to be ready on the other side to confirm. If you shut down your computer, lose internet or electricity, your order also disappears until communication is back up. Most people just don't want to do that. 

[examplens]

I like how everyone keeps saying that security is the number one priority. But in reality, there is an example of an exchange that is very secure and still not very popular and that is Bisq. People here have been recommending it for years, yet only a small number of people actually use it and (imho) the main reason is that it is not very user friendly, especially for beginners.

One big problem of Bisq, in my opinion, is that it requires traders to stay online for the entire duration of a trade. You can't just submit your buy/sell order and go about your business. The software has to keep running for orders to be visible in the order book. If someone accepts and suggests a trade, you have to be ready on the other side to confirm. If you shut down your computer, lose internet or electricity, your order also disappears until communication is back up. Most people just don't want to do that. 

I read on another forum that Bisq also requires a certain deposit as a guarantee, which requires the commitment of more funds than is necessary in the exchange. I'm not sure how accurate that info is.
It certainly does not seem like an ideal solution for easy and fast trading.

Bridgoro is starting to work soon and could be the default p2p platform, because it has been developed in consultation with users directly.

[Darker45]

Of course, everybody would choose security. What's ease of use when your funds could easily be stolen?

But how does a layman, which most users are, truly assess a platform's security? Apart from the generic claims of platforms, is there any other way the great majority of users know the true strength of their security? And how much do users know of possibly attack vectors of criminal actors?

Bybit was once a generally reputable platform. It boasted of cold storage, multisig, multi-factor authentication, and so on, but, boom, they fell victim to the largest financial hack in history. Would anybody have avoided Bybit because of the specific weakness the hackers took advantage of?

[Pmalek]

I read on another forum that Bisq also requires a certain deposit as a guarantee, which requires the commitment of more funds than is necessary in the exchange. I'm not sure how accurate that info is.

It's accurate. Bisq requires both parties in a trade to lock up a security deposit. It's a sign that you as a trader plan to be fair and honest, and you don't have a nefarious agenda. Bisq is decentralized, so there isn't a trusted party that oversees trades between two individuals. The security deposit of 15%, 20%, or more gets locked in a multisig address and stays there until the successful completion of a trade. When both parties signal that they have received what was promised to them, the security deposits are released and refunded to each one of them. If that doesn't happen and one person tries to scam the other, an arbitrator will be selected to take a look at the case and the guilty party may very well lose their security deposit, which will be awarded to the other person. It's a way to punish scammers.   

[Rikafip]

One big problem of Bisq, in my opinion, is that it requires traders to stay online for the entire duration of a trade. You can't just submit your buy/sell order and go about your business. The software has to keep running for orders to be visible in the order book. If someone accepts and suggests a trade, you have to be ready on the other side to confirm. If you shut down your computer, lose internet or electricity, your order also disappears until communication is back up. Most people just don't want to do that. 

Yep. And when you add on that waiting time for someone to actually gets your order, things become even more impractical.

I went through the hassle of setting up Bisq few years ago, and after realizing that if I wanted to sell more than like 2-3k dollars  worth of bitcoin, I would lose like 15% due unfavorable buy orders, I just gave up and never looked back.

[Pmalek]

I went through the hassle of setting up Bisq few years ago, and after realizing that if I wanted to sell more than like 2-3k dollars  worth of bitcoin, I would lose like 15% due unfavorable buy orders, I just gave up and never looked back.

You can be a market taker or market maker. If you take someone else's orders from the order book, you will have to accept buying bitcoin with the premium they have set. And it's true, it can be high. On top of that, you are also paying higher taker fees. But traders can also set their own buy and sell orders. If you do that, then you set the conditions that the other party has to agree to if they want to deal with you.