Bitcoin is like cash under the mattress

[Anders]

any other form of ID can be used or abused the same way a privkey can.

The IPv6 personal ID system I was thinking about would be secure. It's true that no such system exists today as far as I know yet it's probably coming soon to a ID card near you...

ok lets say transactions can only happen if using your IP..

well hello trojan.. sitting on my PC using MY IP.......... goodbye funds

again IP address and passwords, and seeds all require your computer at some point.. which CAN BE COMPROMISED

brain wallets are the same as privkeys. a long entropy which most people store offline as they could mis-spell it or forget one word and mess the whole thing up. so if your going to store a brain wallet safely offline. you might aswell save time and just save the privkey offline, instead.. its the same thing

storing a privkey, a username and a password and a third login procedure offline.. is futile, because as soon as you use them on a online system, they can be compromised. so 1 or 50 authentication requirements makes no difference.

your privkey is all you need to keep safe.. so keep it safe!

Use a Chromebook. A PC is unsafe. Just kidding a bit, but maybe in the future a new kind of network security is needed.

[TookDk]

Use a Chromebook. A PC is unsafe. Just kidding a bit, but maybe in the future a new kind of network security is needed.

The user is always the weak link in security. Therefor be smarter than the personal who want to rob you.

[Anders]

Use a Chromebook. A PC is unsafe. Just kidding a bit, but maybe in the future a new kind of network security is needed.

The user is always the weak link in security. Therefor be smarter than the personal who want to rob you.

I think a trustless mechanism for storing bitcoins is needed. How is the Bitcoin security handled on a smartphone today? Are all the private keys stored locally on the smartphone?

[eden1]

mhm, interesting but most people feel secure with blockchain

[TookDk]

Use a Chromebook. A PC is unsafe. Just kidding a bit, but maybe in the future a new kind of network security is needed.

The user is always the weak link in security. Therefor be smarter than the personal who want to rob you.

I think a trustless mechanism for storing bitcoins is needed. How is the Bitcoin security handled on a smartphone today? Are all the private keys stored locally on the smartphone?

For mycelium, yes. But I rarely keep more than $100 in my mycelium wallet, use it primarly for micro transaction.
Just like I would rarely have more than $100 on me in cash.

If I need to spend big bucks, then will I need to have access to my cold storage.

[Anders]

I do think it would be cool if there was some big Bitcoin bank that paid interest.  But then the bank would need to be insured by some government entity and it would destroy the independence of Bitcoin.

That would still be old tech. I want bitcoins to be safely stored on the block chain. The bitcoins ARE safely stored on the block chain today but if someone loses a bitcoin address then those bitcoins are lost.

[TookDk]

I do think it would be cool if there was some big Bitcoin bank that paid interest.  But then the bank would need to be insured by some government entity and it would destroy the independence of Bitcoin.

That would still be old tech. I want bitcoins to be safely stored on the block chain. The bitcoins ARE safely stored on the block chain today but if someone loses a bitcoin address then those bitcoins are lost.

one solution to this would simply be to destroy your private key, then is it impossible to steal the funds from you...

[TookDk]

one solution to this would simply be to destroy your private key, then is it impossible to steal the funds from you...

But seriously, encrypt your private keys and use a password that is impossible to guess or brute force. Save the encrypted files in the could. That should do it.

[TwinWinNerD]

Personal ID, either it is centralised and/or crackable.

Think about retina and fingerprints, both "easily" exploitable.

[TookDk]

Personal ID, either it is centralised and/or crackable.

Think about retina and fingerprints, both "easily" exploitable.

Absolutely, a MRI scan of the entire hand or body is much more secure than a fingerprint. But as said before, biometric is not deterministic, which make them poor to use for encryption and message signing.

[jaberwock]

Bitcoins are worse than cash under the mattress, because bitcoins can be stolen remotely, while someone need to enter you home to steal your mattress cahs.

Anyway, no matter how secure your system is, the users will ever find a way to be dumb enough to make all the protection be useless. Bitcoin is not perfect, but it has some advantages, for example, they can't be counterfied, the confirmations that makes bitcoin double-spending almost impossible if wanted, and stuff. There are some measures of security you can take(paper wallets, etc..) you can take without depending on third party people, unlike banks and stuff, that you can do nothing to avoid them being careless and make your bank data account leak, so its an advance too.

If you enforce ID tracking of coins, you will give up privacy and will demand a huge ammount of data to be stored(that is, the current and past situation of every satoshi in the world). This will be a huge cost for no benefit and a few drawbacks.

[TwinWinNerD]

OP should look into systems like TREZOR. Once they are secured against physical tempering, they will be nearly 100% secure, unless someone kidnaps you and beats the password and pin out of you with a 5$ wrench.

[TookDk]

kidnaps you and beats the password and pin out of you with a 5$ wrench.

Oldest trick in the book 

[blumangroup]

I do think it would be cool if there was some big Bitcoin bank that paid interest.  But then the bank would need to be insured by some government entity and it would destroy the independence of Bitcoin.

This would kind of defeat the purpose of bitcoin in the first place, and there would be little reason to use bitcoin as a currency. This idea would be no different then keeping fiat in the bank.

[Anders]

Would it be possible to have a separate block chain for Bitcoin wallets? The private keys are then stored encrypted on the wallet block chain, and with just one private key a user can access all Bitcoin addresses belonging to that key. I don't know if that would solve much though.

[TwinWinNerD]

Would it be possible to have a separate block chain for Bitcoin wallets? The private keys are then stored encrypted on the wallet block chain, and with just one private key a user can access all Bitcoin addresses belonging to that key. I don't know if that would solve much though.

You can just use a seed and have a deterministic wallet. Like electrum.

With that, every address generated from the seed can be restored with that seed.

[jonald_fyookball]

The bitcoins ARE safely stored on the block chain today but if someone loses a bitcoin address then those bitcoins are lost.

This is a feature of Bitcoin, not a flaw.   You MUST have your private key to access your coins.
 

[pirsquared]

One side of Bitcoin is the powerful, decentralized peer-to-peer authority-free part. The other side is the hassle and burden for people to manage the cumbersome storage of their bitcoins or trust some authority to secure their bitcoins. That latter part truly sucks. It's like going back a century when people had to store cash under the mattress or go to a bank with their money.

Something needs to be done to solve this problem. What is needed is for the bitcoins to be automatically secure. For example by introducing a personal ID system so that the bitcoins on the block chain are uniquely identified that way and thereby effortlessly and trustlessly secure.

When you cash a check at the bank and carry the cash with you; it is only as secure as you make it. The same is true for bitcoin.

[Anders]

The bitcoins ARE safely stored on the block chain today but if someone loses a bitcoin address then those bitcoins are lost.

This is a feature of Bitcoin, not a flaw.   You MUST have your private key to access your coins.
 

Sure, that the bitcoins are safely stored on the block chain is a feature. Having to at the same time store private keys, on the other hand, is a major flaw not a feature.

And in the future if people will in practice in most cases let banks keep their bitcoins safe we are back into the old money paradigm again.

For Bitcoin to become more than a tool for investments this problem needs to be solved in better ways than forcing people to manage their security themselves or outsource the security to a third party. The whole idea of Bitcoin is to move away from the trust paradigm. It should be possible to trust the Bitcoin system instead of having to trust oneself or third parties.

[Anders]

One side of Bitcoin is the powerful, decentralized peer-to-peer authority-free part. The other side is the hassle and burden for people to manage the cumbersome storage of their bitcoins or trust some authority to secure their bitcoins. That latter part truly sucks. It's like going back a century when people had to store cash under the mattress or go to a bank with their money.

Something needs to be done to solve this problem. What is needed is for the bitcoins to be automatically secure. For example by introducing a personal ID system so that the bitcoins on the block chain are uniquely identified that way and thereby effortlessly and trustlessly secure.

When you cash a check at the bank and carry the cash with you; it is only as secure as you make it. The same is true for bitcoin.

That's the old paradigm. Bitcoin is today burdened by that legacy. And if Bitcoin remains unregulated the situation remains even worse than for fiat money, since people would then need to trust themselves to manage the security or trust some MtGox II.