Is Multisig Worth the Extra Complexity?

[DiMarxist]

A well secured single wallet is enough but what you should know about the concept of multising is for extra security. As you will need more than multiple seedphrases for a transaction to take place. So if you ask me multising is worth it, the crypto sector is one that has been faced with serious of attact so it's expected that we take extra security measure in protecting our Bitcoin holding, hence the concept of multising wallet.

But it should be noted that, multising wallet are usually used for corporate holding. If a company or organization wants to hold Bitcoin they can use multiple person's to make it more secure , usually these types of Bitcoin holding is always large hence the reason for separate signatures to performing a transaction.

[d5000]

There's definitely a higher chance that one wallet software turns out to have a vulnerability at the entropy level rather than two or more at the same time.

But normally you would use the same wallet software to generate the two or three keys? I continue without understanding your point

Ah, maybe because I wrote "to store the key in a different location". Yes, that would point to a key generation in different wallets. But at the same time, you'd have the extra security of the second and third key ... even if the entropy of one of them is weak, then you'd have the better second software.

I however would proceed in the following way:

- use a single, battle proof software (Bitcoin Core preferably) to generate the keys on an airgapped device; you can use three addresses generated with three different seed phrases to handle offline storage more easily
- use the address almost exclusively to receive funds (e.g. for donations or recurring customers)
- transfer the least times possible, sign on airgapped device, and then broadcast on online device, to minimize human error rate.

[Abiky]

One thing I’ve been thinking about lately is how much responsibility comes with owning Bitcoin.

Self-custody gives you control, but that control also means protecting your keys and having a plan if something goes wrong.

That’s why I find multisig interesting. You don’t have to rely on a single private key, so losing or compromising one key doesn’t necessarily mean losing your Bitcoin.

It does add some complexity, though.

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

If you know how to "multi-sig", I'd say go for it. It's much better than relying on a "well-secured" single wallet. With recent vulnerabilities being found on hardware wallets, one must be extremely-paranoid. While "multi-sig" is great and all, not all wallets support this feature. Particularly, wallet apps on mobile devices. The problem with "multi-sig" is the user experience (UX). Developers need to work on this if they want to encourage self-custody of Bitcoin. Especially, third-party developers (which are all other developers working on projects besides the Bitcoin Core wallet software).

For some people, making a "multi-sig" wallet that requires 2 out of 3 keys is enough. Others might need to increase the number of keys for added security. It all depends on your needs. Believe me, "multi-sig" does wonders when it comes to leaving Bitcoin to heirs. "nlocktime", too. Do your own research to determine what's best for you. Good luck.