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.

[Tiaramane]

What's the point of using multisig waller when all the access key is held by you (one person) unless you set it up right and access can't be obtained by another from you then it's safe. Same way if you can carefully save your 12/24 words seed phrase your funds are going to be protected and safe.

The safety lies on how the person protects the access key.

If one person controls all the keys, multisig doesn't automatically solve the problem. I think the real benefit comes from separating the keys and reducing the risk of a single point of failure.

[Tiaramane]

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

Multisig is more likely a wallet guiding system of controlling private keys to tighten the security of corporative investors such as families or companies.
There seed phrases are split amare st members who are in custody of controlling the wallet.

So like the first member replied, multisig is not for everyone and as an individual investor or crypto user who admires Privacies and prioritizing on self custodial, you only need to hold your keys yourself because sharing it would also reduce your rights to control your own wallet.

I agree that multisig makes a lot of sense for families, companies, and people who need shared control over funds. But I think it can also be useful for individuals who want to protect against losing access to a single key. You don't necessarily have to share control with other people, you can distribute the keys across different devices or locations. It really comes down to your security needs and how comfortable you are managing the extra complexity.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

It does add some complexity, though.
Would you consider multisig necessary for personal holdings, or is a well-secured single wallet still enough?

They both are as they have their pros and cons but it still mainly depends on the person handing them (the wallets) because if you're careless to break an egg, it doesn't matter if the egg is in a basket covered with multiple feathers or you holding it in your hands, you'll still break it nevertheless f you aren't the careful type.

I think of things like when there's a back up (second options) then you won't be serious but when you know you have only one option and that's to protect what you have by all means possible then you'll get more serious. It's like burning your bridges after crossing them than you keeping them for incase you want to go back (but to me there shouldn't be any going back).

So although Multisig is better and gives you different security protections, a well secured single wallet does It for  me, Multisig for when we're note than one involved.

[X-ray]

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

You know that over-securing your assets can sometimes be a problem for yourself. If you only hold a few hundred dollars worth of Bitcoin, I think there's no need for multisig. Multisig is usually for advanced use – for example, when you hold millions of dollars worth of Bitcoin, maybe you can consider this option. For regular use, I think a simpler setup with a hardware wallet is enough.

Is there anything like over-security? If you want to use multisig for small funds and you are okay with importing transactions and signing it across different keys, there is nothing wrong with it. People use single signature because it's simple and stress free and it doesn't in anyway ways single wallet to be less secure.

Sometimes, it might not be about the funds you want to sign, there are instances where $50 might look less but that amount can break trust between two people. If they decide to use multisig to sign transaction because they don't trust each other, I don't think it's going to look weird.

Truly agreed, there's no such thing as over-security and nobody can't be too paranoid these days, even few hundred dollars are still money and it's not even that difficult to setup multisig.

Electrum is free and you can setup multisig with it. It adds to the complexity, that's true but its just few additional steps.

The point is, multisig barrier to entry is low any anybody can set one up, it doesn't even cost anything at all. It's not as complex as people imagined.