Is Multisig Worth the Extra Complexity?

[Mrbluntzy]

Would you consider multisig necessary for personal holdings, or is a well-secured single wallet still enough?

I consider multi signature very necessary for personal holding, I even consider it more necessary now than before, reason being that Bitcoin is now more valuable than before and as such, it has attracted more scammers and hacks to launch various attacks on Bitcoin holders, just so they can steal one's Bitcoin.

A well secured single wallet is good but should anything goes wrong, the person will lose their coins, we have so many example of people that lose their coins meanwhile they believed only in a secured single wallet.

Between the complexity of multi signature wallet and losing one's Bitcoin in a presumed self secured single wallet, which in better? We can argue that multi signature is not so important for an individual holding their personal coins but that's before when the rate of hacks and attack on Bitcoiners was not as much as it is today.

[SilverCryptoBullet]

I consider multi signature very necessary for personal holding, I even consider it more necessary now than before, reason being that Bitcoin is now more valuable than before and as such, it has attracted more scammers and hacks to launch various attacks on Bitcoin holders, just so they can steal one's Bitcoin.

It's can be used for individual holdings to company holdings, there is no restriction like multisig wallets are only usable or best for individual holdings while with companies, institutions, it's not good.

Practically, good or bad, it depends on practice, as if you create a multisig wallet but don't make backup rightly, you will lose bitcoins in that multisig wallet. If you use a single signature wallet but do everything well, from download, create a wallet, make its backup, do backup test for recovery, and use strong password to protect your wallet file too, you are good and fund is safe.

Like Bitcoin blockchain is good for very secure transactions but if people sent bitcoins to a wrong address, it's their fault, not Bitcoin's and their fault does not make Bitcoin blockchain is bad.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

I don't think any person who understands more about multisig wallets will have a second doubt about it, because it is a perfect match for what we may need to know or do when it comes to wallet security; some may not know its relevance because they have little knowledge or idea about Bitcoin wallets and security measures. A wallet that supports two-factor authentication security measures should not be taken for granted.

[Alvin_talk]

The thing is once the attacker actually brute forces the keys independently from each other then he will only be able to recover different wallet because each private key will only lead to each different address and in most cases he will find the two addresses empty.

No. I don't know if you really understand my post. Usually to spend from a 2 of 2 P2MS (Pay to multisig script) you need to provide both signatures. Now if you successfully spend from your multisig address, it means the public keys will be visible in the blockchain, right?. Theoritically, if the attacker uses two quantum capable computers he can derive both private key simultaneously. The only challenge would be that it will cost more computational resources to execute but it is possible. So the attacker will have to consider if the amount of BTC in the address is worth such computational resources in the first place and if it is, he will surely execute the attack. I don't really understand what you mean by different wallet in this case.

[BlackHatCoiner]

There is one scenario where for me 2-of-2 or even 3-of-3 multisig would make sense: if I want to re-use an address (e.g. because I'm getting paid by a recurring customer) and at the same time am worried about quantum computers.

Come on, you can't really say this. What about the possibility that your single-sig entropy was not generated randomly, as with the Coldcard case? Or what if your passphrase is not secure enough, and can be brute forced by someone finding your seed phrase? Or what about the idea that a strong passphrase is not human readable, and you can make a mistake by choosing to write it down? (As opposed to another seed phrase.)

This however rather a niche scenario. If I only want to store my key in different locations, I could also store simply the passphrase "in parts" (first half in one place, second half in another ...).

This is far from a good idea. There are many people who have come up with splitting their seed phrase in 2 or 3 parts so it is "divided" too. This is just nonsense, you will get yourself locked out.

[Hamza2424]

I believe that 12 word seed phrase is secured enough and cannot be bruteforce because it has 128 bits of entropy and provides the same level of security like that of 256 bits. Adding a strong passphrase to your 12 word seed phrase is better.

Bro, they don't offer the same kind of security. A seed phrase with 128 bits and 256 bits has a huge difference, and the basic difference is that a 256 bit seed phrase is 2^128 times more difficult to find the accurate words.

Let's say if someone needs 1 year to brute force 128 bits, then it will take roughly X × 2¹²⁸ times more time. Which is a lot of time, bro. So there is a huge difference, although brute forcing 128 bits is as useless as brute forcing 256 bits, but there is a difference that we should accept.

[Renampun]

If you have a large amount of assets, then you might consider using multisig.. but if not, I guess it's not necessary to go that far.. the most important thing is that you understand what you're doing and can properly secure your Bitcoin, that should be safe enough.. because multisig requires some setup before it works, and if you make a mistake in creating it, you'll only make things harder for yourself.

[Cookdata]

Between the complexity of multi signature wallet and losing one's Bitcoin in a presumed self secured single wallet, which in better? We can argue that multi signature is not so important for an individual holding their personal coins but that's before when the rate of hacks and attack on Bitcoiners was not as much as it is today.

The recent hacks does not make single signature insecure. In fact, many of the people that weren't affected were users with single sig wallet with passphrase. If you can use a multisig, that's fine but single wallet is fine too of done properly.  

The thing is once the attacker actually brute forces the keys independently from each other then he will only be able to recover different wallet because each private key will only lead to each different address and in most cases he will find the two addresses empty.

No. I don't know if you really understand my post. Usually to spend from a 2 of 2 P2MS (Pay to multisig script) you need to provide both signatures. Now if you successfully spend from your multisig address, it means the public keys will be visible in the blockchain, right?. Theoritically, if the attacker uses two quantum capable computers he can derive both private key simultaneously. The only challenge would be that it will cost more computational resources to execute but it is possible. So the attacker will have to consider if the amount of BTC in the address is worth such computational resources in the first place and if it is, he will surely execute the attack. I don't really understand what you mean by different wallet in this case.

Public keys are not exposed when you receive Bitcoin on Multisig, so technically QC doesn't pose any threats to multisig. It's just like pay to public key hash where public key is hidden until the script is spent with a valid signature, that's when the public key is exposed. If the address does not receive another Bitcoin or have some change left over, QC can't do anything at that point.

Paying to Multisig does not mean using a single signature from a single private keys. The Xpub from each signers can create many wallets addresses, and each have their private keys for signature. Any transaction can be sent to each of the signers and have it sign using their seed phrases.

[AprilioMP]

Securing assets using multi-signature is great, but I find it complicated because the process requires a strong memory.
Multi-signature is typically used by organizations that require multiple signatures to authorize transactions. If you have a strong memory and are prepared to handle everything, I don't think it's a bad idea to use it to secure your Bitcoin assets.
So far, I haven't needed multi-signature to secure my Bitcoin.

Multi-sig doesn't require a strong memory, it just has a complex set-up and signature requirement for signing transactions that makes it discouraging, but I prefer it for long term storage since I wouldn't be doing much transactions frequently on the wallet address. If you are a regular user that spend Bitcoin every time, a single signature wallet should be able to give you the best security at any time, and if you wish to add a passphrase you can remember, then that's better.

I don’t deny that, and I completely agree with you regarding this point. Earlier, I mentioned that multisign wallets require a fairly strong memory.
Multisign wallets are great to use, but in my own experience so far, I haven’t needed one because I’ve been able to get by with a single-signature wallet. What I mean here is not that you have to remember every letter and word of the seed phrase, but rather where it’s stored.

[salad daging]

Would you consider multisig necessary for personal holdings, or is a well-secured single wallet still enough?

IMO no, it's still more of a single wallet than a multisig, some other people think it's much more secure, and it's true but I don't want the hassle.

I once made a multisig wallet on electrum (PC and Mobile) "2 cosigners and require 2 sigantures" is a bit complicated if we don't use it too often, especially for routine transactions it's a bit complicated, so I don't use it anymore unless people say long-term might not matter.

I would probably think more security to hold BTC in large quantities in hardware only, until now it is still proven to be safe there have been no obstacles.

[hd49728]

IMO no, it's still more of a single wallet than a multisig, some other people think it's much more secure, and it's true but I don't want the hassle.

I once made a multisig wallet on electrum (PC and Mobile) "2 cosigners and require 2 sigantures" is a bit complicated if we don't use it too often, especially for routine transactions it's a bit complicated, so I don't use it anymore unless people say long-term might not matter.

I would probably think more security to hold BTC in large quantities in hardware only, until now it is still proven to be safe there have been no obstacles.

It's about security, how you keep your devices clean and secure, how you create and use your wallet rightly, safely and securely, then how you store your wallet backups securely too.

All these things must be practiced with good carefulness, and only knowledge about security won't be enough to help you, your devices, wallets and funds. Practice matters at the end and will decide whether you secure your bitcoins successfully or lose it to hackers or bad people.

So multisig wallets won't be enough if you are careless.

Privacy also matters as if you don't let anyone online or offline knows about your Bitcoin wallets and bitcoin funds, you will not become a target for a hack or physical attack.

Multisig wallets will require a little bit more transaction fees.

[Zaguru12]

~

It's about security, how you keep your devices clean and secure, how you create and use your wallet rightly, safely and securely, then how you store your wallet backups securely too.

Multisig wallets will require a little bit more transaction fees.

Regardless of the type of wallet the security of how each of them is set up is definitely the most important thing but still multisig wallets add extra layer of security just like how pass phrase added to single sig wallets add extra layer.

As for transaction fee it’s definitely going to be more expensive than a single sig transaction because the size of the transaction would have been increased due to the number of keys needed to sign that transaction, the transaction data will have more public keys and it will grow depending on the type of wallet or the number of signers of that transaction