One bad egg doesn't equals the the rest

[masulum]

So self-custody can't really be replaced by centralized platforms. No matter how much they claim their services are safe, the risk of failure is still significant.

a centralized platform is can't be choosen as a safe place to store assets, especially for companies that do not have a representative in our country. In fact, even if the platform have an office in the same city where we live, that doesn’t mean they can’t freeze our assets. We must remain vigilant about who will control our assets. never trusting a platform run by people we don’t know each other 100%, even some people not believe their wife/husband to control their money. this is not because they don’t respect each other, but because they feel their money is safer if they keep it by themselves. As we know, there are thousands of companies that have gone bankrupt and struggled to return the money deposited by their customers. This could be a lesson for all of us, even if there are security vulnerabilities in hardware wallets, it’s still better to keep our money ourselves than in centralized platform.

[Catenaccio]

a centralized platform is can't be choosen as a safe place to store assets, especially for companies that do not have a representative in our country. In fact, even if the platform have an office in the same city where we live, that doesn’t mean they can’t freeze our assets. We must remain vigilant about who will control our assets. never trusting a platform run by people we don’t know each other 100%, even some people not believe their wife/husband to control their money.

Having a representative in a nation does not eliminate risk of a business bankruptcy or scam exit or service closure while customers lose money there. It can give people some kind of belief in the company future, legitimacy, and possibility of better guarantee for their funds but the reality is different and sometimes very bitter and painful.

Banks are legit business entities, have many bank offices in a nation, surely have representatives and ambassadors but historically there are many bank bankruptcies in many countries.

Same with cryptocurrency centralized exchanges with many dead ones in history.
Exchange graveyard (Rest In Peace).

[macson]

It's what made me think this way, my friends are already complaining that hardware wallets aren't safe anymore, one fell and others are already looking like spoilt eggs.

That means your friend needs to relearn self-custody. The problem with coldcard is that they failed to anticipate a bug in their wallet, which resulted in many wallets being impacted. It was never self-custody's fault, but rather the developer's mistake in the wallet. So is it fair to say self-custody is at fault when all this mess is the developer's fault? I don't think so.

[legiteum]

Self-custody is always a bad idea unless you are a criminal or you don't live in a civilized country.

How does the Big Brother boot taste, legiteum?

Seriously? You are still sawing away on that old log?

Crypto is the #1 lobby group in the USA. Bigger than Big Oil, or Big Pharma, or Big Banks. And crypto, including Bitcoin, is 100% Trump now. It's impossible to know where Bitcoin ends and Trump begins.

You traded any right you have to talk about "anti-government" anything when the you decided to buy US politicians in order to make Number Go Up. Now the Bitcoin community is begging US politicians to use compelled taxpayer money to buy up Bitcoin so the price goes up and they profit.

All while Wikipedia still has "free market philosophy" in Bitcoin's description... 

[EarnOnVictor]

If everyone is scared of hardware wallet as their safety option and self custody option who wins? Who benefits the most from this? I guess the centralised entities and the banks.

Nothing is perfect, so people could be scared, but are not dumb not to weigh the risks of other options. The hardware wallets still remains the most viable option.

What if this is it? What if the goals of these people is to strike fear in the mind of holders that giving up their Bitcoin to custodial entities is the only way forward?

Hahaha...you must be overthinking. Don't they already have the most of the market shares when it comes to Bitcoin keeping, daily transactions and building businesses around it?

Is there any evil agenda behind this or it's just normal human reaction?

For me, it's a fair human reaction. Is it not fair when your trusted hardware wallet betrayed your trust?

[Muba20]

I know what many people will say, that I am just scared because one hardware wallet got ruined, ColdCard as the main example, but before you said this few people surrounding myself have already started to show this sign.

It's what made me think this way, my friends are already complaining that hardware wallets aren't safe anymore, one fell and others are already looking like spoilt eggs.

Is there any evil agenda behind this or it's just normal human reaction?

There is no way to say that a hardware wallet problem keep all hardware wallets at risk. While a hardware wallet failure can naturally create concern among holders, which is not unreasonable, it is also important to remember that if a hardware wallet is lost, it is not a loss for the entire self-custody system, and it is also not possible to think that a large hacker group or someone is trying to break the self-custody system. We can change this idea with a simple example, that is, if a device of an electronic company fault for some reason, we cannot say that the same problem will be present in every device. At that time, many devices manufactured by that company at the same time may have faults, but this does not mean that all devices of all electronics companies will have the same faults.

The hardware wallets of the leading large companies use open source code, so there is nothing to hide there. If someone has a bad thought like try to change the code, it will  be noticed by others. That's why I think we shouldn't assume the same problems exist all wallets if we see a fault in one wallet.

[L E G E N D A R Y]

That means your friend needs to relearn self-custody. The problem with coldcard is that they failed to anticipate a bug in their wallet, which resulted in many wallets being impacted. It was never self-custody's fault, but rather the developer's mistake in the wallet. So is it fair to say self-custody is at fault when all this mess is the developer's fault? I don't think so.

We need to understand that’s there’s an important difference between self custody itself and the tools and softwares used to achieving this self custody. Self custody simply means to control your own keys/funds, but that doesn’t mean that the tools and softwares used in handling those keys can’t or won’t have flaws in their designs or bugs. And should incase that happens. It doesn’t in anyway imply that self custody itself is the problem, it only shows the importance of choosing a well maintained and verified system as well as understanding the wallet you’re using.