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.

[yhiaali3]

What is the point of expanding the use of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies if they are going to become centralized assets similar to banks? What is the difference between storing Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies on centralized exchanges and storing fiat currencies in central banks?

If we are going to sacrifice Bitcoin’s revolutionary features of decentralization, security, self-saving and privacy in exchange for ease of use, then what is the point of Bitcoin in the first place? We will go back to the old centralized system and everything Satoshi created will end. This is not an option.

[SilverCryptoBullet]

What is the point of expanding the use of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies if they are going to become centralized assets similar to banks? What is the difference between storing Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies on centralized exchanges and storing fiat currencies in central banks?

It is only plan of central banks, commercial banks and governments while citizens and actual Bitcoiners who understand importance of privacy, full control, decentralization will certainly not want these things from such wrongly strategic changes because it's not helpful for their benefits.

If we are going to sacrifice Bitcoin’s revolutionary features of decentralization, security, self-saving and privacy in exchange for ease of use, then what is the point of Bitcoin in the first place? We will go back to the old centralized system and everything Satoshi created will end. This is not an option.

Governments can do it very easily with altcoins, stable coins, and tokens as Wrapped Bitcoin tokens and the likes but it's impossible for them changing a decentralized Bitcoin project, blockchain and network to a centralized one. Bitcoin was not programmed by Satoshi Nakamoto to become like this and Bitcoin communities are strong and decentralized enough to fight back for maintaining the decentralization.

[ThemePen]

What is the point of expanding the use of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies if they are going to become centralized assets similar to banks? What is the difference between storing Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies on centralized exchanges and storing fiat currencies in central banks?

If we are going to sacrifice Bitcoin’s revolutionary features of decentralization, security, self-saving and privacy in exchange for ease of use, then what is the point of Bitcoin in the first place? We will go back to the old centralized system and everything Satoshi created will end. This is not an option.

More fame of central exchanges and use of ETFs have made Bitcoin more of normal bank, where users have paper claim to thing and not thing itself.
But, joining of banks is just one of reasons why Bitcoin has not won. Real win means that banks have become optional, not required. Start of new tech such as MPC wallets and Layer 2 fixes now gives middle ground between high safety and lack of the stressful way of holding actual seed phrase in hands of the person. I think change is not yet dead because as long as we have power of leaving central system, ability to move your Bitcoin to personal wallet. As long as you can move it to personal wallet, you still have money lifeboat which nothing in world can break in bank or make government take it.

[viljy]

I believe that there is no such dilemma at all. This is an artificially contrived contradiction. Modern wallets are not so sophisticated that only Phd students can use them. Therefore, a person who is willing to risk his money by storing it on CEX (any of which may suffer the fate of FTX or Mt.Gox or BTC-E or a host of others) because of his laziness, justified by "convenience", should not subsequently resent the scam (if this happens). However, they are outraged and demand compensation. Why? Because the desire for convenience due to the laziness of the mind comes from infantilism.

And a little off-top. What causes mass infantilism in the population? Paternalism of the state. What does this mean? It is a welfare state that distributes benefits, etc. At the same time, this state totally controls every citizen. All this combined fosters extreme irresponsibility among citizens.

[Alpen]

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?

Mass adoption requires more than just making it easy to buy and hold. Without actual utility, crypto will never leave the wallets of speculators and investors. We should look at the African model, where crypto is accepted at over 650,000 points of sale. And believe me, the leaders there aren't self-custody wallets, but centralized services.

For people in Africa, Bitcoin makes sense as a hedge against inflation. They can spend their savings in two clicks using apps that look and feel like familiar banking interfaces.

Meanwhile, doing business in Europe is exhausting. I waste so much time explaining the benefits of crypto payments and why someone should even bother opening a Cryptomus wallet or using a crypto gateway. Honestly, I’d rather work with clients from Africa. They might struggle with English, but they perfectly understand how to pay in Bitcoin through a gateway. They value the tool, not just the hype

[CryptoYar]

[...]

Idea that level to which one chooses to use ease over safety is just reason to be lazy is more and more hard to prove because the tech gap between using a main trading site and having your own keys has shrunk almost to zero. Most of people who lose their money in recent fall of trading site believed that using self holding was too hard, even though this is not right thing to think.

This lack of care is usually linked with controlling countries which push mindset of safe by start by keeping firm hold on help and making person no longer able to help themselves. I also think it is logic problem to say that you want to have all freedom and high wins of Bitcoin and at tsame time ask for bailout that does not make much sense.
I think money freedom would be skill to understand that being free is cost of being easy and if you do not hold onto your keys, you are just renting promise that can be stopped at any time.

[purple_sparkles]

[...]

Idea that level to which one chooses to use ease over safety is just reason to be lazy is more and more hard to prove because the tech gap between using a main trading site and having your own keys has shrunk almost to zero. Most of people who lose their money in recent fall of trading site believed that using self holding was too hard, even though this is not right thing to think.

This lack of care is usually linked with controlling countries which push mindset of safe by start by keeping firm hold on help and making person no longer able to help themselves. I also think it is logic problem to say that you want to have all freedom and high wins of Bitcoin and at tsame time ask for bailout that does not make much sense.
I think money freedom would be skill to understand that being free is cost of being easy and if you do not hold onto your keys, you are just renting promise that can be stopped at any time.

I think if a large amount of money is involved, it’s worth making the effort to write down and securely hide your seed phrase, or even better memorize it. As recent events have shown, it’s not always wise to fully trust various services with storing your funds or seed phrases. Even large exchanges and banks can control your assets and may freeze them while asking you to explain their origin, which takes time and causes stress, and in some cases, you could even lose access to your own money. That’s why it’s important not to be careless. If the amount is small and you wouldn’t suffer much in case of a freeze, then for convenience you can use such services. But when it comes to large sums, it’s better to be more cautious.

[knowngunman]

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

You should be specific next time. This is Bitcoin discussion board. Bitcoin is not begging for mass adoption.

Should we sacrifice security for usability?

The simple and short answer is NO. security can not be sacrificed for whatever reasons. There's no essence of usability if the security is not guaranteed. So higher security with gradual adoption >>> low security with mass adoption.

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

Easier to use yet they force you to submit your identification details. Prevent you from withdrawing your coins all in the name of maintenance. Freeze your account in any slight suspicion even without proof. Is this what easy to use means to you?

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

I will refer you to JayJuanGee personal text on his profile... "Self-Custody is a right." you shouldn't trade that for anything, not even for mass adoption. If we come this far without compromising it, then we can still go far without sacrificing it.

[Samlucky O]

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

What are the layers if I may ask? As far as Bitcoin is concerned the only risk I see is exposing your privacy, like your private key/ seed phrase which is equal to hack. Well convinient in keeping fund in centralized exchange (CEX) is also a risk, but the risk can not be compeard to that of exposing your seed. Where exchange risk only happens is if the exchange is hacked or they decide to block your access to fund because of some suspicious move since they have Total control of your asset. But that doesn't mean convenient in keeping fund in exchange is that bad. And secondly Bitcoin adoption is not just increasing because of convenient rather the growth.

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 should remain security conscious of self custody as that doesn't deprive Bitcoin of not gaining adoption. Weather we chose non custodial or custodial, Bitcoin will reach it goal and gain adoption because both have been used simultaneously ever since the oncept and Bitcoin is growing. So convinient does stop anything.

[sleepfirefly]

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?

i don’t think we have to sacrifice security for usability. crypto is already easy to use to be honest just that a lot of people don’t want to make their research in understanding something new because they’ve already been so used to traditional ways

imagine having a wallet wherein you don’t have to sign up or provide any legal documents. isn’t that so convenient?

[davis196]

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?

Crypto is already very easy to use. Setting up an Electrum wallet and learning how to send and receive BTC isn't rocket science.
The users prefer centralized platforms, because they can trade BTC and altcoins on those platforms. Self-custody wallets usually don't offer such features. I do remember that Exodus offered crypto swapping, but the fees were very high, and they used a third-party service like Changelly to handle the transactions. FTX was a more like a financial pyramid rather than an actual centralized exchange. The real competition isn't security vs. convenience. The real competition is between trustworthy platforms and platforms like FTX.

[348Judah]

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

There is nothing of such, we already emerged for mass adoption and bitcoin is more easier to use as it is not centralized, except one failed to learn about using it before engaging, everything has been made possible for everyone interested to make use of bitcoin, all we need to do is by keeping to it requirement by learning, this is not a network we can see operate in such a manner others behave when being controlled by a central authority, but bitcoin has its network protocols in which its obeys.

[goldkingcoiner]

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 should not trade in security for any reason. Those people who store their cryptocurrencies on centralized exchanges often learn a hard lesson once the exchange gets hacked, exit scams, or loses your money in n other ways. I would rather have myself to blame for losing my money than depend on someone else, sitting in some unreachable offshore country to safeguard it for me.

Self custody is always the way to go.

[snowpega]

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

Everyone may have their own point of view, but in my personal view, one should always go for a decentralized system, more especially when holding large amounts in crypto. One more thing here is to keep in mind that there is always a loophole in every system, so when you are going to even choose a decentralized system, you still need to do your best research to keep secure, not to get damaged from those loopholes that can disturb your system under some kind of attack.

Here, I mean is that if you are the one who use to use own personal decentralized wallets at different places in real time world, then you still need to confirm any potential danger before performing any transaction or connecting your personal wallet to any online platform. DYOR!