Security Vs Convenience In Crypto

[Glowy]

For mass adoption to happen, crypto must become easier to use.
But every layer of convenience seems to introduce new risks.

Should we sacrifice security for usability?

Events like the collapse of FTX reminded the industry that convenience sometimes comes with hidden risks.

Many users prefer centralized platforms because they are easier to use than self-custody wallets.

For crypto to reach mass adoption, do we need more convenience or should the focus remain on security and self-custody?

[rat03gopoh]

Should we sacrifice security for usability?

Events like the collapse of FTX reminded the industry that convenience sometimes comes with hidden risks.

Not necessarily; there are many free (open-source) platforms that offer convenience without compromising or increasing the inherent risks of crypto. The Electrum wallet is a prime example.

They come to FTX not for convenience, but for the potential benefits of 3rd party governance. Fiat and crypto should be treated according to its respective characteristics.

[Potato Chips]

Never compromise security for convenience. What is the use of convenience when you get rinsed by bad actors lol.

Just give bitcoin some time, more developments are likely to happen. Just the recent bull run alone had things that we used to just dream about years ago like lots of countries noticing bitcoin or crypto in a good way.

There are middle ground approaches that balances security and convenience, and should not be so hard to learn for an average person. TBH, always had a gut feeling majority of people are just too lazy to learn and maintain a simple setup like keeping at least 2 backups lol.

[_act_]

Should we sacrifice security for usability?

Events like the collapse of FTX reminded the industry that convenience sometimes comes with hidden risks.

Many users prefer centralized platforms because they are easier to use than self-custody wallets.

For crypto to reach mass adoption, do we need more convenience or should the focus remain on security and self-custody?

Although exchanges helped in crypto adoption but what you are saying is not partially true because what you mentioned, convenience is seen on using noncustodial wallet in some areas fffgff.

On noncustodial wallet, no verification required, the coin will just be sent.

The convenience people see on custodial exchanges are trading and the ease of converting your coins to fiat which is also still a kit trading.

[rat03gopoh]

What I find interesting is whether most new users are actually willing to learn self-custody tools, or if they will continue to rely on intermediaries even when safer alternatives exist.

Do you think the future of crypto adoption will lean more toward better self-custody tools, or toward regulated custodial platforms?

This is a matter of individual preference, and it's fine to use both options simultaneously within a reasonable risk tolerance. Interestingly, more people are now using the second option to store the majority of their assets, despite numerous cases of mismanagement, freezing, and selective fraud.

I believe both will continue to have their fans. The crypto industry has evolved with numerous business models, and regulations sometimes hinder individuals from becoming their own bank.

[uneng]

Mass adoption can be only reached once the masses take awareness of how the financial system works and how doomed to failure it is on long term through fiat currencies. I don't think it's a matter of convenience or security, because we have already had both, still, not enough to drive the market to mass adoption.

I don't even know if it's something which will happen someday, because masses only do what they are ordered and encouraged to do by centralized groups of power such as governments.

Unfortunatelly, I fear crypto can only reach mass adoption when its initial purpose of providing decentralization and privacy gets completely buried by the groups which are taking control of it through regulations.

[aoluain]

Mass adoption can be only reached once the masses take awareness of how the financial system works and how doomed to failure it is on long term through fiat currencies. I don't think it's a matter of convenience or security, because we have already had both, still, not enough to drive the market to mass adoption.

I don't even know if it's something which will happen someday, because masses only do what they are ordered and encouraged to do by centralized groups of power such as governments.

Unfortunatelly, I fear crypto can only reach mass adoption when its initial purpose of providing decentralization and privacy gets completely buried by the groups which are taking control of it through regulations.

But the masses have not reached those conclusions already and likely never will. Banks for example
offer the illusion of hassle free money management. The make it easy for people to manage their
money, they offer loans, mortgages and investment products.

The masses are not educated in finances so Bitcoin (or more crypto) is seen at possibly making a
quick profit.

IMO "mass adoption" is far away and is likely to never happen. I think its an illusion.

[Catenaccio]

But the masses have not reached those conclusions already and likely never will. Banks for example
offer the illusion of hassle free money management. The make it easy for people to manage their
money, they offer loans, mortgages and investment products.

The masses are not educated in finances so Bitcoin (or more crypto) is seen at possibly making a
quick profit.

IMO "mass adoption" is far away and is likely to never happen. I think its an illusion.

Loans, leverages are bad and very risky as it firstly requires people to deposit their money as collateral while we know that storing fund at any platforms, any exchanges is dangerous. Secondly, loans and leverages are escalation of people greediness and increases chance of making bad decisions. In risk management, it's very terrible practice.

Not only FTX but many accidents, scam exits, hacks, deaths of centralized exchanges.
eminder: do not keep your money in online accounts.
https://www.cryptowisser.com/exchange-graveyard/

[KiaKia]

OP, there is no convenience without security, atleast not in this crypto space.

Would you choose to use a hot wallet to store thousands of dollars worth of bitcoin because it's easy to download apk file and run the crypto wallet ?

You won't have a rest of mind because tomorrow another news might come up again about android and iPhones insecurity,  like I just said , there is no convenience without security.

You will sleep at night when you choose a open source hardware wallet over the easy way out. One is free, which spells convenient to your type, while the other is not for free but gives you security and convenience in one package.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

For mass adoption to happen, crypto must become easier to use.
But every layer of convenience seems to introduce new risks.

There is no complication in the use of Bitcoin for any reason, therefore should anyone wanted to invest or make use of Bitcoin for any purpose, they should create time to learn how it is being made applicable for their use.

We should also not think of how it appears as if new protocols are unfolding and changing the narrative of what we already knew in the past, because bitcoin has always been consistent and also the network is more secured than we ever thought of as it cannot be altered.

[BlackHatCoiner]

For crypto to reach mass adoption, do we need more convenience or should the focus remain on security and self-custody?

If by "mass adoption", you mean merchants accepting it as medium-of-exchange, then it should absolutely become more convenient to use, because the competition is a debit card that pays instantly with ~0 fees and which is available to use via NFC on every phone.

Layer 2 solution is what is needed for mass adoption, but truth be told, the number one obstacle on mass adoption is the brute fact that people just don't care paying with crypto.

[Faisal2202]

For mass adoption to happen, crypto must become easier to use.
But every layer of convenience seems to introduce new risks.

Should we sacrifice security for usability?

Events like the collapse of FTX reminded the industry that convenience sometimes comes with hidden risks.

Many users prefer centralized platforms because they are easier to use than self-custody wallets.

For crypto to reach mass adoption, do we need more convenience or should the focus remain on security and self-custody?

We need more convenience if we want mass adoption because that's how currency has been introduced. If someone can't easily use btc, like for trading, selling, or buying into fiat directly from their bank, they won't like it. Because if they could do it directly with banks, that means they trust it more, knowing banks won't offer this option without proper paperwork.

Meaning it is legal for them and believe it or not, the legality of it matters a lot to big investors because they could not afford to see their money taken by the lawmakers.

[Forsyth Jones]

For crypto to reach mass adoption, do we need more convenience or should the focus remain on security and self-custody?

If by "mass adoption", you mean merchants accepting it as medium-of-exchange, then it should absolutely become more convenient to use, because the competition is a debit card that pays instantly with ~0 fees and which is available to use via NFC on every phone.

Layer 2 solution is what is needed for mass adoption, but truth be told, the number one obstacle on mass adoption is the brute fact that people just don't care paying with crypto.

Or the closest thing to that would be credit cards with crypto balances like BTC or USDT, that's the easiest way to "materialize" Bitcoin in everyday life.

But we know that credit cards must comply with Visa and Mastercard rules. I won't go into the subject of the level of privacy being inferior to P2P currencies like Bitcoin, because all it takes is for the local government or a bank to demand it and they obey.


Answering the OP's question, Bitcoin is still a promise when it comes to mass adoption, but it has matured well and withstood many things. I still hope that the BTC code will mature further, but we know that the development of new BTC technologies is quite slow. I think the last significant thing we had in 5 or 15 years was Segwit, LN and Taproot... most of these measures focus more on the security and privacy of the network and efficiency in transaction confirmations (Segwit). Or batter yet, better efficiency in the use of the block.

Sacrificing security directly impacts decentralization. If Bitcoin is no longer decentralized, it will no longer have value. So concepts of blocks, confirmation time, POW and other things will never be an option in exchange for greater speed. Bitcoin is, above all, a currency, a technology and P2P payment system. Bitcoin's focus has never been on transaction approval speed, security and decentralization have always come first.

For fast transactions, we already have plastic cards, paypal, Pix and others. But I don't doubt the technology, perhaps someday the devs will be able to solve the scalability problem without sacrificing decentralization (things like increasing the block size only push the problem further down the line).

We need more convenience if we want mass adoption because that's how currency has been introduced. If someone can't easily use btc, like for trading, selling, or buying into fiat directly from their bank, they won't like it. Because if they could do it directly with banks, that means they trust it more, knowing banks won't offer this option without proper paperwork.

Meaning it is legal for them and believe it or not, the legality of it matters a lot to big investors because they could not afford to see their money taken by the lawmakers.

Bitcoin is convenient and easy to use. Just create a self-custody wallet, it clearly has send and receive buttons. Most wallets require users to make the backup before using the wallet.

Knowing how to copy and paste an address or scanning Qr codes... is already easier than using many banking apps with their cluttered UI.

[serjent05]

Should we sacrifice security for usability?

Obviously no, and Bitcoin is developing with these two, security and usability,  being kept at optimum level.  This is also one of the reason why we have the Lightning Network, it is that people prefer using the centralized exchanges and apps for their transaction.

Events like the collapse of FTX reminded the industry that convenience sometimes comes with hidden risks.

People use FTX not for convenience but for the possible profit promised by the management.

Many users prefer centralized platforms because they are easier to use than self-custody wallets.

Not entirely true, a non-custodial wallet is way easier to use than a centralized platform, with a non-custodial wallet, we do not have to seek the approval of the platform.  We can just copy and paste the address and send without any worries of the request being suspended.

For crypto to reach mass adoption, do we need more convenience or should the focus remain on security and self-custody?

Why choose one when the developer can implement both.

[Dogedegen]

For crypto to reach mass adoption, do we need more convenience or should the focus remain on security and self-custody?

If by "mass adoption", you mean merchants accepting it as medium-of-exchange, then it should absolutely become more convenient to use, because the competition is a debit card that pays instantly with ~0 fees and which is available to use via NFC on every phone.

Layer 2 solution is what is needed for mass adoption, but truth be told, the number one obstacle on mass adoption is the brute fact that people just don't care paying with crypto.

What do you mean with 0 fees? Because that is not correct when it comes to cards. The fees are there, they are just hidden from the user so they are much different than a transaction fee in Bitcoin so you can't really compare it like that. You are right when it comes to the usability aspect, but we need to be more detailed when making statements about security and usability and what the competition is. Firstly, one must separate the topic into 2 big groupings.

1. Storage and investments.
2. Payments, with emphasis on smaller payments.

When it comes to the first group, there should definitely be no sacrifices to security in favor of usability. Most people are obsessed with this usability thing, but they at the same time are wasting a lot of time with daily activities. Inefficient ways of doing things. So who needs these efficiency gains from this trade? Nobody really needs them and we must stop justifying this behavior. Security must be absolute and should never be sacrificed for anything. We have had so many hacks that could have been avoided if people behaved more reasonably and in a smart way. Most people do not need to store any Bitcoin at all on exchanges or others platforms.

When it comes to the second group, we do need to make the tradeoff for many reasons. I do not mind doing something more risky like using a lightning wallet on my phone or even one where it is custodial, but the point there is that at most I am risking a couple hundred dollars. In the worst possible case, it won't bother me at all. It is like if someone stole $300 in cash from my wallet. It is a bad thing, but I can completely ignore it and go about my day. When it comes to the competitors, we must make it clear that with LN you can get the best possible experience already for smaller payments. I have never had an issue with LN when it comes to small amounts and the other side also received the payment instantly. It is as close as it gets to the tap with your card experience I believe. What else is there to improve about that?

Mostly merchants are not aware of how great the LN experience is, they don't know how to install it or adopt it, and there may also be some issues relating to convertibility to fiat for those that need to do that. I think accepting Bitcoin with LN should be standard, because I don't need to convert a small percentage of my sales to fiat all the time. Realistically how much is it going to be? 1% of my sales volume or even less for the average merchant? Why bother with converting to fiat at all?

[AmoreJaz]

For mass adoption to happen, crypto must become easier to use.
But every layer of convenience seems to introduce new risks.

There is no complication in the use of Bitcoin for any reason, therefore should anyone wanted to invest or make use of Bitcoin for any purpose, they should create time to learn how it is being made applicable for their use.

We should also not think of how it appears as if new protocols are unfolding and changing the narrative of what we already knew in the past, because bitcoin has always been consistent and also the network is more secured than we ever thought of as it cannot be altered.

With the technology that we have today. You can basically search anything over the net. And study on your own. Also, there are so many tutorials now that you can just watch and follow. It may be complicated at first, but I would say, all of crypto users today started from a beginner as well. So start small and don't rush, you can try your learned technique by trying it on your own. If you are in doubt, go to search engine and find it. This is the positive side of digital age, we can find video tutorials also. Try it to absorb step by step. No one is rushing you to understand things.
If you don't want to be duped big, use only small amount of money just to get good grasp of your transactions. There is no rush in learning new things because it is your money that will be at stake later on. So you need to learn how to take care of your own business.

[Darker45]

No, I don't agree. Security and convenience aren't mutually exclusive. You don't have to sacrifice one in order to avail of the other.

1. Your effort looking for a good CEX could be the same effort looking for a good non-custodial wallet.
2. You signing up with the CEX is like downloading the wallet.
3. And then you proceed to submit all those personal details, documents, videos, pictures, and whatnot to pass KYC. You might be asked to repeat this process over and over again. That's too much inconvenience. With a non-custodial wallet, the process ends with you writing down your backup on a piece of paper.

[TastyChillySauce00]

Convenience in crypto as from my understanding is basically just a more refined UX flow and nothing more.

People choose exchange because people care about making profit more than actually holding their bitcoin, they just want a faster way to sell their bitcoin and treat it like holding stocks.

[X-ray]

Many users prefer centralized platforms because they are easier to use than self-custody wallets.

Is it though? Last time I used centralized platform they demand KYC through third party, setting up the account was a mess. Some email just didn't go through and managing things were difficult because how convoluted the UI was.

Compare it to an electrum. You just create an address and thats it. You don't even need 2fa or email verification just to withdraw your money. It's overall a smoother and convenient experience for me compared to using exchange's custodial wallet.

[tiCeR]

For mass adoption to happen, crypto must become easier to use.
But every layer of convenience seems to introduce new risks.

Should we sacrifice security for usability?

Events like the collapse of FTX reminded the industry that convenience sometimes comes with hidden risks.

Many users prefer centralized platforms because they are easier to use than self-custody wallets.

For crypto to reach mass adoption, do we need more convenience or should the focus remain on security and self-custody?

The FTX case was more about stupidity than convenience. I think it all boils down to the use cases on an individual basis. If anyone owns 2 bitcoin, there is no need to keep the full amount in the same place. Assuming you do actually pay with your bitcoin on a daily basis, put that on a wallet that is convenient to use, has a proven track record and can be used with your phone. Usually people do the same with cash, they don't hold all of it in one place if they own a lot (checking vs. saving account). I'd approach it the same way.

FTX had so many red flags, but nobody really paid attention then. However, it as a failure on many levels I think, including authorities. I think it turned out they ran their accountancy with excel spreadsheets It's mind-boggling how they got away with so many shortcomings in their business operations despite the total assets under management.

As a basic rule it is never smart to leave your assets in a place you have no control over. There have been many many exchanges going bust in the last 15 years and that was a lesson that was probably quickly learned by those who have been around here for a while. Nevertheless, to foster adoption, convenience is important. Anything that is too technical or comes with too much friction is not very suitable for daily usage.