Can highest security, actually Increase the Chance of permanent Loss

[Asuspawer09]

This wasn't in my opinion about the security thing, there are wallets that have advantages when it comes to security and there are surely more secure compared to using the traditional ones. Also, we have custodial and non-custodial accounts that might have some kind of trade-off depending on the users. But this doesn't change anything about it, since if the wallet is more secure, then it is. In this case, it is just a matter of human error here his the one who loses the password of the iron key. Thats his mistakes not a mistake of the security, it wasn't lost because it is secured. I guess we have something like convenient or backup, but we already know that, he should back up the key if he knows what he's doing, if he doesnt have that, then this was all his mistakes.

You might be right in some situations, since on a lot of platforms you could easily recover your password on your wallet in case you forget about it, you might easily recover that, but it wasn't the rule, and he just didn't follow the precautions, no backups, plus losing the key.

[KataifiDream]

I was reading a case about Stefan Thoman, who lost the password to his Iron key, which holds 7,002 btc in it and he had 10 chances and used 8 already. Now he is finding ways to recover the password.

It raises a question about self-custody that, can the highest security actually increase the chance of permanent loss?

I am not saying security is bad, but saying it has tradeoffs and in bitcoin there is no password reset. Because this device is not a normal device, but maybe if Stefan had held those btc in a normal USB or a reliable storage device, maybe he would have those btc now.

My take is to that question is no. Highest security doesn't increase the chance of permanent loss, but carelessness does. That's why you call it highest security because it gives you assurance that no one can take those BTC to you. Though it is not 100% safe but at least it is little to no chance that anyone can take those BTC to you. Unless you are so careless to not save any seed phrase or key that can help you retrieve your cryptos.

[joniboini]

I second the opinion that carelessness probably contributes more to this, or you could blame luck, too, if you wanted to push it further. At the end of the day, having multiple backups is necessary, and having a secure but easy-to-remember password is necessary.

I remember trying to make a complicated password with encryption and whatnot, but I failed to remember it properly because I didn't store the decryption method that well. I wouldn't blame my "complicated" password for that, though.

[pawanjain]

Let's try to get the logic and idea behind all this, if truly it was a self- custody, then probably be able to have access to his coin as long as he has the necessary private keys or seed phrase to import the wallet from another device.

Is Bitcoin were not stored on his device or wallet, instead on the blockchain, oh that's maybe required is the access to the private keys or seed freeze from another device, but while on his own device he may not be able to access his wallet because of the encoded keys and security is being made just to secure his wallet but not his Bitcoin, because bitcoins are not stored on the wallet or our device, instead on the blockchain.

The thing is that he had stored his coins in an IronKey Device and set a password to it and then forgot the password to that device.
The device is constructed in such a way that if someone enters an incorrect password 10 times then the data within the device is wiped out completely.
Thus making the bitcoins in it completely lost. So he has only 2 attempts left to access the private keys within that device so that he can get access to his bitcoins.