Security Vs Convenience In Crypto

[noorman0]

-snip-
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've only heard that the MPC wallet mechanism works like that, and it sounds dubious to say the user itself is the sole and 100% control asset. Fingerprints or emails are never private keys; they're just UX access/command gateways. If both can represent private key recovery functions, I think that smacks of centralization at least. idk

[GreatArkansas]

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

For me, from what I can see now, most people don't want to manage their own seed phrase, and I get it. That stuff is stressful. But then FTX blew up and wiped out people who thought they were playing it safe by using an exchange. So it's kind of a lose-lose right now. I think the wallets just need to get way better before any of this goes mainstream, because right now you're basically picking between confusing and risky.

[Darker45]

~snip~

For me, from what I can see now, most people don't want to manage their own seed phrase, and I get it. That stuff is stressful. But then FTX blew up and wiped out people who thought they were playing it safe by using an exchange. So it's kind of a lose-lose right now. I think the wallets just need to get way better before any of this goes mainstream, because right now you're basically picking between confusing and risky.

I understand, although I often wonder what really makes managing your own seed phrase stressful. Do you even manage it? There's literally nothing you need to do about it except writing it down on a piece of paper and make sure you don't lose it. And it's pretty much simple.

Perhaps it's the thought that you're fully responsible of your savings that bothers many. And it's probably because they're so used to passing that responsibility to third parties, which unfortunately means waiving their control over their very own funds in favor of the custodians.

[pawanjain]

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?

Convenience can come at a risk and so it's better to keep things segregated.
Nobody would like to risk huge amount of money and sacrifice on security.
Why not have some funds in bitcoin where the amount is high at a secure location and not sacrifice on security.
Why not have some funds in a separate wallet which is convenient to use and have low amount of funds in it for regular transactions.

[Muba20]

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

In terms of widespread adoption of cryptocurrency, I think both are necessary because if there is no convenience, people will lose interest in adopting it. On the other hand, if I do not pay attention to security, then I will lose assets. But a general thing is that when people are new to a topic, it is necessary to explain it simply. And in the case of crypto, keeping money in a custodial wallet is initially okay and when a person gradually gains more knowledge about it, he will use a self-custodial wallet where he will have to provide his own security. Security is definitely needed, but for widespread adoption, it is also necessary to emphasize on convenience.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

In terms of widespread adoption of cryptocurrency, I think both are necessary because if there is no convenience, people will lose interest in adopting it. On the other hand, if I do not pay attention to security, then I will lose assets. But a general thing is that when people are new to a topic, it is necessary to explain it simply. And in the case of crypto, keeping money in a custodial wallet is initially okay and when a person gradually gains more knowledge about it, he will use a self-custodial wallet where he will have to provide his own security. Security is definitely needed, but for widespread adoption, it is also necessary to emphasize on convenience.

In cryptocurrency, the saying and reminder is "It's your key, it's your coin". Key here is private key and people only actually own their coins if they have private keys of these coins. This is only possible if they use non-custodial wallets for storing their coins, and it is impossible if they use custodial wallets with exchange accounts for storing fund.

However, this contains requirement of securing their device and wallets by themselves. Being self-custodians means they are fully responsible in security of devices, wallets and funds. No exchanges, no other parties are responsible in security of wallets and funds in case people go self-custodial.

People can ignore privacy but they must take care of security as best as possible because without enough security, their funds will be stolen someday and somehow.