Security Vs Convenience In Crypto

[MusaMohamed]

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 is a good case study for people who prioritize convenience than security and safety of their funds.

That exchange used to provide free withdrawal fee for Ethereum ETH and tokens on ERC20 chain years ago when Ethereum blockchain was very congested and transaction fees on that chain was very high like $100, $200 or even higher.

There was months when people enjoyed convenience and free withdrawal fees on ERC20 chain on FTX but later when bull market ended, bear market took over, and FTX death spiral began, many people lost money on that exchange.

It's a classic example of convenience is dangerous.

Here is the breakdown based on the 2020–2021 timeframe:

Early 2020–Early 2021: FTX offered free withdrawals for many ERC-20 tokens (excluding ETH) for a period, making it a popular choice for users moving funds.
February 25, 2021: FTX announced that beginning at 12 pm SGT on February 25, 2021, users would begin paying blockchain fees for all ETH and ERC-20 token withdrawals.

[LoyceV]

Should we sacrifice security for usability?

Who's "we" in this question? You can sacrifice as much security as you want: it's very convenient to keep all your Bitcoin in a mobile hot wallet without password. That makes it very easy to spend your Bitcoin, at the expense of security.
But I'm not doing it, and I'm not recommending anyone to do so either.

[Pablo-wood]

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

David Black put it, “No convenience. No adoption.”

I have been asking myself a certain question will people trade the ease to their debit card or Apple pay for managing their seedphrase themselves?. Most people don't like security, to them it means absolutely nothing. They want a situation where they can hold someone accountable if something goes wrong instead of them crying over a lost keys.

But I will say security is second to none. Crypto adoption isn't a complete must because there is high tendencies it will follow the path of online banking and cloud storage. Even at that  few persons will rather prefer taking responsibility of their actions having self-custody of their coins which  is far better than having an adoption with full control.

People might choose to adopt what's easy to use over what's technically perfect but still that it won't balance usability and protection.

[Moreno233]

Should we sacrifice security for usability?

I don't understand what you mean by this statement because security and usability are not conflicting. In other words, there is where it is stated or applicable that applying security measures hinders usability. You may argue on the basis of flexibility because most secure storage media like hardware wallets are not readily available for everyday usage like hot wallets that are readily available wallets. Secured systems are usable and available for use.

[MusaMohamed]

Should we sacrifice security for usability?

Who's "we" in this question? You can sacrifice as much security as you want: it's very convenient to keep all your Bitcoin in a mobile hot wallet without password. That makes it very easy to spend your Bitcoin, at the expense of security.
But I'm not doing it, and I'm not recommending anyone to do so either.

Many people just don't pay attention on security until a time they got security issues and their devices, wallets compromised so they lost sensitive information and money. The same with privacy as if people don't care about security, they're careless and very likely they don't care about privacy too.

Absolutely. I have a hot wallet on my phone which is pretty much online 24/7. I've had such a hot wallet for years, which I've spent from multiple times a week, and I have never been hacked and never lost a single satoshi from it. It's entirely possible to have a safe hot wallet. However, I am under no illusion that such a wallet is by far the riskiest wallet I own and is by far the most likely wallet I own to be hacked or exposed to malware. I only ever keep a small daily spending amount of bitcoin in it (certainly no more than 0.01 bitcoin as you say).

Why beginners should pay attention to their privacy

[dansus021]

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?

This called the blockchain trilemma, The blockchain trilemma explains the challenge of balancing security, decentralization, and scalability in blockchain networks. Improving one property often comes at the expense of one or both of the others. this what binance academy said.

the L1 like Ethereum had Layer 2 that act for scalibility, L1 should not sacrifice security in my opinion security is number one priority for layer 1.

In my opinion crypto today already convenience, if we take example there are a bunch of platforms that offer merchant to start adopting crypto Coinbase commerce Bitpay Binance and others. Even Stablecoin is now has multichain adoption and dirt cheap.

The only problem for now is government regulation

[ZaryBee]

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?

This is definitely a tricky balance, on one hand, if crypto is too complicated, mass adoption will be slow. People need easy access and user-friendly platforms. But as we've seen with FTX, convenience can bring hidden risks. Centralized exchanges might be easier, but they also put your assets at risk if something goes wrong.

Personally, I think security should always comes first, even if it makes things a bit harder. Self-custody gives users full control and protection. As crypto grows, the industry should focus on making security more user-friendly, not just sacrificing it for convenience. In the end, it's about creating tools that are both easy to use and secure, so people don't have to choose between the two.

[Felicity_Tide]

Should we sacrifice security for usability?

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

In as much as security of finance is always important and must be a priority, it is not also ideal to sacrifice one for the other considering the fact that they can both exist without contradiction. As far as cryptocurrency is concerned, it is an innovation that needs usability because that's practically one key factor to mass adoption. You don't expect people to like what they struggle with. But just so we may know, usability(convenience), self custody and personal security can all coexist, but it heavily depends on how the end user can manage things for him/herself.

Those who trust third parties more than they trust themselves are practically still living with the illusion that they can't keep their own finance safe. Just like a reply above said, the type of tool matters, but what some end users choose to believe and do, is obviously something we can not change. Everyone practicing self custody today learned about it at some point.

[Bastketsrus]

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.

Yeah, it’s all about balance. Keep most funds in self custody and only use small amounts for convenience. Even with services like bitcoinbetting, people want ease of use but still value control.

[Z-tight]

Personally, I think security should always comes first, even if it makes things a bit harder. Self-custody gives users full control and protection. As crypto grows, the industry should focus on making security more user-friendly, not just sacrificing it for convenience.

To be honest i don't see it as being difficult. What is really difficult about using a hardware wallet? Nothing, it is in fact newbie-friendly. So using a hardware wallet and then a hot wallet for spending on the go would keep you relatively safe, that should not be so hard to do. I know we can get into how to safely back up your seed phrase and how daunting some people may consider that to be, but i believe if you want to be your own bank, you have to be ready to learn how to do basic stuff like this.

[Cookdata]

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?

Depending on what you call usability; there is nothing too hard in a hardware wallet for a anyone that know how to read and write. Most people hold Bitcoin on centralized exchange because of ease access to the market, they can sell and buy what the want quickly and perhaps convert their coins to cash quickly, these are the only thing I can picture from the usability here which you can do on a hardware wallet, there are exchange swaps on hardware wallets and other features that are not there can be utilized through the exchange.

One thing about this centralized exchange custody I know, people are going to do what they feel it's best for them even if you tell them exchanges are not good for custody. That's the guide you see online anyways, if you search Google about custody of coins, even the centralized exchanges has blogs written post guiding people how to secure their coins but give more preferences to putting on their platform than using a custodial wallet. It's because they don't want to lose users they started this web3 wallet thing so users can move coins between their web3 wallets and the exchange wallet.

[uchegod-21]

If anyone chooses convenience over security, it means they are willing to give up the right to control their coins. Following the old traditional pattern means their coins can be frozen at any time, withdrawals restricted, coins seized, and access denied. Convenience is complicated, so choose again: which is best? If you are investing in bitcoin for long term, then security should be non negotiable, otherwise you stick to only fiat related investments or savings.

[Ryu_Ar1]

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

It depends on how we choose in the end but for me personally I don't think we will think about the comfort option when it is exchanged for a sense of security because after all security is one of the very important things that we must still have as users or investors in bitcoin considering this is a risk and with the security that we have then at least the risk of losing will be minimized.  But on the one hand talking about comfort in convenience there are some things that might be this is also an option because some are still used today such as electrum it also has good security and convenience, it is possible that centralized exchanges are currently very much but it is only an option and I don't want to take it even though I also don't want to be naive because I have a wallet on a centralized exchange but it is not an option for my storage let alone for the long term.

Centralized exchanges will only be suitable for us to make short-term transactions but for storage for the long term obviously Security will always be one of the top priorities that we must think about.

[Alphakilo]

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?

In recent times, if you have noticed, hybrid models are more being used to make sure mass adoption is achieved, giving individuals or businesses the options that suits them best when they either decide to trade by investment, hold or transact using crypto currency, with their security or convenience as core focus.

Moreso, I strongly think and recommend that new technology is the way forward to make security more invisible instead of improvising on failed centralized or self custody platforms that look convenient but remain exposed to corruption.

[boyptc]

I think Bitcoin's one asset is also about its security. There have been a lot of attacks from the crypto projects for the past years.

And if it's going to be sacrificed for Bitcoin or any other project, from that point it's already dead.

If both of security and convenience can come up together, that's the choice that we have to make. There's no need to sacrifice the security IMO while we can learn complicated things if they're so inconvenient to us.

[Davidvictorson]

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

Without security, then bitcoin is useless. Not all cryptocurrencies are secure. Some of them are centralized so I believe our focus in on bitcoin.
As for self-custody, I believe that no matter how much we preach it to people, there are folks that would still prefer not to be self-custodial for reasons best known to them. Thus, we cannot force it on them but it remains an option.
With regards to convenience, I think it is more convenient than fiat if only folks would do their homework on it.

[Orpichukwu]

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?

I don't even understand how some consider using a centralised exchange to store their crypto as being convenient while using a self-custody wallet is stressful. Why the stress of trying to move coin from a centralised exchange is what I consider more inconvenient since the exchange sometimes can decide not to allow you to withdraw at your time of need.

Security has always been number one and should continue to be put first. What you have under your full control is what's regarded as yours; that has been the best practice, and we should go with that and not store it on a crypto exchange. Exchanges are meant only for swapping and buying crypto, not to be used as storage.

[MusaMohamed]

I don't even understand how some consider using a centralised exchange to store their crypto as being convenient while using a self-custody wallet is stressful.

Newbies can feel like this and with them, it's not too bad to start with centralized exchanges, accounts and custodial wallets but they must be very ready to learn and change their practice. Transactions on blockchains especially Bitcoin blockchain are irreversible so it's very risky if newbies start with non custodial wallets while they are yet familiar with blockchain, wallet, address and transactions.

But it is not a reason for people to stay using custodial wallets forever, they must change their practice and migrate from custodial wallets to non custodial wallets anytime as soon as possible.

https://bitcoinsecurity.org/
https://bitcoin.org/en/secure-your-wallet
Bitcoin Q&A:
Not your keys, not your coins.
How do I secure my bitcoin?

[tread93]

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?

I think we crossed that line a few years ago when they introduced Bluetooth in cold storage wallets and im just face palming looking at that crap and thinking why the hell they would integrate something that could be hacked so easily. SMH. Ledger with their 3rd party bullshit at the time but a lot of others did the same. I think there will always be some risk somewhere to an extent unless youre fort knox!

[Rustam Meraj]

This is main point of your question, ease of use of crypto without losing safety that Bitcoin was made to give. Though you said that ease usually brings danger, reports show that new technology such as Account Abstraction and MPC wallets now let people use fingerprints and email in getting back access and holding your own money is now much easier, without loss of control. Although I agree with your feeling that it is more difficult to keep your own codes, I would tell that more than 560 million are now owners of crypto, and this is due to fact that smart wallets take care of technical part behind scenes.
I believe the answer to everyone using it will be in mixed way, in which apps become as easy to use as normal banking yet let one have real ownership of their items. You are correct in the end, though, business will never be able to rest on ease, but we are going into time where high safety is becoming normal part of the program, and not hard job on the side of the user.