Bitcoin Forum
December 12, 2017, 05:01:09 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you trust yourself to manage your own private keys?
Yes, 100%, and I always will. - 129 (82.2%)
Yes, only because I don't yet trust bitcoin banks. - 19 (12.1%)
Not at all, I lose everything, or am not technical enough. - 2 (1.3%)
No, but someday I'd like to manage my own bitcoin and private keys. - 7 (4.5%)
Total Voters: 157

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Do you trust yourself to manage your own private keys?  (Read 6600 times)
sardokan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile
March 19, 2015, 04:21:46 PM
 #81

Why is this relevant? You shouldn't be reusing addresses anyway.

Reusing address(es) is a privacy problem and also it may expose your private key due to reused R values. Overall, it isn't wrong to reuse address but using address in a buggy client usually isn't a good idea.
Is it a problem to recieve payments as well? How are you supposed to not repeat your address for example if you are in a sig campaing? gotta be the same always.

It's no security issue to reuse for receiving money

There is no security issue to reuse even if you send money from an address. Quantuum computers do not exist !!!! The only issue with reusing is privacy.
Oh I get it now, so you can freely use the same account, people just do it to not be traceable on the blockchain I guess.

There is a security issue if you send BTC and use a weak RNG

So reuse to receive is ok
Reuse to send is not so good and can be a security issue, as we have seen with the android RNG bug that resulted in bitcoin theft for people reusing addresses to send from android

So if you have sent from an address, it can be risky to reuse it to receive funds
1513098069
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513098069

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513098069
Reply with quote  #2

1513098069
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513098069
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513098069

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513098069
Reply with quote  #2

1513098069
Report to moderator
1513098069
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513098069

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513098069
Reply with quote  #2

1513098069
Report to moderator
1513098069
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513098069

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513098069
Reply with quote  #2

1513098069
Report to moderator
redsn0w
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


# Free market


View Profile
March 19, 2015, 04:22:40 PM
 #82

Why is this relevant? You shouldn't be reusing addresses anyway.

Reusing address(es) is a privacy problem and also it may expose your private key due to reused R values. Overall, it isn't wrong to reuse address but using address in a buggy client usually isn't a good idea.
Is it a problem to recieve payments as well? How are you supposed to not repeat your address for example if you are in a sig campaing? gotta be the same always.

It's no security issue to reuse for receiving money

There is no security issue to reuse even if you send money from an address. Quantuum computers do not exist !!!! The only issue with reusing is privacy.
Oh I get it now, so you can freely use the same account, people just do it to not be traceable on the blockchain I guess.

Did you mean address? Yes you can use your bitcoin address many times as you want the problem of the privacy is when you "link" your address to your forum account or your real identity.
madmat
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910



View Profile
March 19, 2015, 04:25:15 PM
 #83

Why is this relevant? You shouldn't be reusing addresses anyway.

Reusing address(es) is a privacy problem and also it may expose your private key due to reused R values. Overall, it isn't wrong to reuse address but using address in a buggy client usually isn't a good idea.
Is it a problem to recieve payments as well? How are you supposed to not repeat your address for example if you are in a sig campaing? gotta be the same always.

It's no security issue to reuse for receiving money

There is no security issue to reuse even if you send money from an address. Quantuum computers do not exist !!!! The only issue with reusing is privacy.
Oh I get it now, so you can freely use the same account, people just do it to not be traceable on the blockchain I guess.

There is a security issue if you send BTC and use a weak RNG

So reuse to receive is ok
Reuse to send is not so good and can be a security issue, as we have seen with the android RNG bug that resulted in bitcoin theft for people reusing addresses to send from android

All that is true, but security issue is linked to bad RNG, no problem with a good wallet. HD wallets are great as they give you a new address for each transaction and you only need to backup 12 or 24 words.

thejaytiesto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
March 19, 2015, 04:38:49 PM
 #84

I may really look into Xapo. I know that feel of lossing a lot of documents over the years. Human error is unavoidable, lossing your wallet.dat could be fatal.

Klestin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 494


View Profile
March 19, 2015, 04:40:29 PM
 #85

Trezor + split paper wallet.  Easy peasy.
iGotSpots
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498



View Profile WWW
March 19, 2015, 04:40:50 PM
 #86

That's like asking if you can handle knowing your own PIN for a debit card

██████████████
██████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████
   .HealthyWormCoin.   |     Twitter
Explorer
   |       YouTube
Worm Shop
The worms need your help to grow!
sardokan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile
March 19, 2015, 04:41:53 PM
 #87

I may really look into Xapo. I know that feel of lossing a lot of documents over the years. Human error is unavoidable, lossing your wallet.dat could be fatal.

Sure, use HD wallet, and Hardware wallet

like Trezor or ledger, and backup your seed  Wink

(Or use Xapo, I don't mean Xapo is bad  Wink )
Xapo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80


View Profile WWW
March 19, 2015, 04:52:15 PM
 #88

Why is this relevant? You shouldn't be reusing addresses anyway.

Reusing address(es) is a privacy problem and also it may expose your private key due to reused R values. Overall, it isn't wrong to reuse address but using address in a buggy client usually isn't a good idea.
Is it a problem to recieve payments as well? How are you supposed to not repeat your address for example if you are in a sig campaing? gotta be the same always.

It's no security issue to reuse for receiving money

There is no security issue to reuse even if you send money from an address. Quantuum computers do not exist !!!! The only issue with reusing is privacy.
Oh I get it now, so you can freely use the same account, people just do it to not be traceable on the blockchain I guess.

There is a security issue if you send BTC and use a weak RNG

So reuse to receive is ok
Reuse to send is not so good and can be a security issue, as we have seen with the android RNG bug that resulted in bitcoin theft for people reusing addresses to send from android

All that is true, but security issue is linked to bad RNG, no problem with a good wallet. HD wallets are great as they give you a new address for each transaction and you only need to backup 12 or 24 words.
By the way, Xapo also generates a new wallet address for each transaction.

Twitter: @xapo
Xapo
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80


View Profile WWW
March 19, 2015, 07:49:20 PM
 #89

Xapo's SVP of Legal & Strategy just wrote an entire blog on the topic of investors holding their own private keys:

"Using storage techniques like paper wallets or printed key back-ups, as required by certain storage solutions, is akin to managing a large swath of physical cash."

You can read the whole thing here: https://twitter.com/xapo/status/578634435345690624

Twitter: @xapo
Gimpeline
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 521



View Profile
March 19, 2015, 08:15:25 PM
 #90

Why is this relevant? You shouldn't be reusing addresses anyway.

Reusing address(es) is a privacy problem and also it may expose your private key due to reused R values. Overall, it isn't wrong to reuse address but using address in a buggy client usually isn't a good idea.
Is it a problem to recieve payments as well? How are you supposed to not repeat your address for example if you are in a sig campaing? gotta be the same always.

It's no security issue to reuse for receiving money

There is no security issue to reuse even if you send money from an address. Quantuum computers do not exist !!!! The only issue with reusing is privacy.
Oh I get it now, so you can freely use the same account, people just do it to not be traceable on the blockchain I guess.

There is a security issue if you send BTC and use a weak RNG

So reuse to receive is ok
Reuse to send is not so good and can be a security issue, as we have seen with the android RNG bug that resulted in bitcoin theft for people reusing addresses to send from android

All that is true, but security issue is linked to bad RNG, no problem with a good wallet. HD wallets are great as they give you a new address for each transaction and you only need to backup 12 or 24 words.
By the way, Xapo also generates a new wallet address for each transaction.

Yeah but since you comply with the US laws. Know your customer and all that crap it dosn't really matter if it is a new adress or not. your account is tracked no matter how many adresses you use. And if the law decided that you did a no-no you are screwed since you didn't keep your private key private. Not exactly what I call security.
Kim Dotnet
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10


View Profile
March 19, 2015, 10:24:44 PM
 #91

I think that manage private keys on my own is the best solution to make my money safe , also bitcoin make you far away from banks you don't need any bank service !
nachoig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252


View Profile
March 19, 2015, 11:20:32 PM
 #92

That's the "only possible difference"?  Really?  There aren't any other possible differences?

Do they both operate under the same government regulations?
Are your deposits insured in both by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (or some other equivalent insurance underwriter)?
Are they both held to the same financial audits?

Not every country has deposit insurance or serious audits, and also, deposit insurance schemes has limits. And in some cases, I think deposit insurance isn't sufficient if a too big bank fails.

Criticism often comes to online wallet providers (Xapo, Coinbase, etc) saying, if you don't own your private keys, you don't actually own your bitcoin. On the other hand, if your cash is in a traditional bank, you don't really own your cash either. The only possible difference, traditional banks have been around longer, and more people trust them. Many bitcoin users who criticize bitcoin vaults, store their cash in a traditional bank. Hypothetically, if Bank of America, or Barclay, or DeustcheBank announced they've invested millions into a highly protected, advanced, security architecture, would you trust someone to store it then? I personally don't trust myself to store my own bitcoin, for now. That could change in the future, but right now, I'm not a fan of the options, as the technology depends too much on my ability to maintain hardware, or, not lose something. I think about pictures, movies, files, documents, I had on my computer 10 years ago (and I always backed up), and I probably couldn't retrieve a single one without relying on a cloud-based service (Facebook, Google Drive, Dropbox, etc.). I have no idea where the original photos of my trip to Indonesia in 2008 are, but I know that album is still easily accessible on Facebook. Are critics right to say, don't use an online wallet provider, it's not safe?

This is true, but securing physical cash in some places of the world is really hard. I can't go to the street (in my case, a big city in Brazil) with an amount equivalent to 1 BTC without suffering a serious risk of being robbed with a fire gun, by the way, a lot of assaults here occurs just after you go to the bank and withdraw some cash (known here as "saidinha bancária", or "bank exit"). In these last 2 days I also exchanged some US dollars which I had at my home for Brazilian Reals, but immediatelly after exchanging it, I deposited the reals at my bank account, because:

1. I didn't want to take the risk of being back to home after exchanging money, even doing this through a legal exchange.
2. With the devaluation of Brazilian Real against the US dollar (now it's 3.29 BRL per USD, against 2.32 BRL per USD one year ago), the excess of banknotes was damaging my wallet and eventually could lead the attention of other people.

Personally I don't trust in my bank at all, specially because I don't trust in fractional reserves, but I think in mycase is just the lack of other alternatives. Also, a lot of people and business still use banks for payments, so I still need a bank account to receive these payments.

OTOH, the idea behind Bitcoin is to bring to you the control of your money, specially on its eletronic form. So, if you go to a Bitcoin bank, you bring to the bank the control of your money, in the same as it happens at fiat money. So, why Bitcoin?
countryfree
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666

Your country may be your worst enemy


View Profile
March 19, 2015, 11:31:43 PM
 #93

So what's the choice?
Should I trust myself, or should I trust some unknown service, in some foreign country?

I've chosen to trust myself.
Slaxt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476

Gone......


View Profile
March 19, 2015, 11:40:21 PM
 #94

So what's the choice?
Should I trust myself, or should I trust some unknown service, in some foreign country?

I've chosen to trust myself.

And you would be a winner at least whatever happens you only have your self to blame if you do something wrong or lack on security and it gets stolen. I trust myself 100% just as i do with all my finances they will hopefully always be in my control so no nasty surprises come my way.

TC is the worse thing to happen to default, needs to open his eyes and not jump to conclusions, not everyone lies!!! Anyway as promised I have left, pass word changed to long random which I will forget like that plonker who ruined a perfectly fine account.
asuryan180
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
March 19, 2015, 11:57:36 PM
 #95

The option trusting Bitcoin banks would be suicide i can imagine them now trading away loaning out at interest they will just pick up where the fiat banks left of. The thing it is good to be in full control of your private keys and i believe if you don't hold them then you don't have anything plus you are your own bank like it should be and for you to keep up to date with insuring the security of your computer is up to scratch, it would be easier have someone else hold it but that someone is not insured and until they are i will hold my coins private keys.

DannyHamilton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002



View Profile
March 20, 2015, 12:13:47 AM
 #96

Not every country has deposit insurance or serious audits,

Certainly, and if I lived in one of those countries I wouldn't deposit my local currency into a bank.

and also, deposit insurance schemes has limits.

Yes, it does.  And intelligent people are aware of those limits and make intelligent decisions about how to protect their assets.

And in some cases, I think deposit insurance isn't sufficient if a too big bank fails.

This has never been true in the United States.  Are you aware of any examples of specific situations anywhere globally where an in insured deposit wasn't covered due to the bank being "too big"?

randy8777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


View Profile
March 20, 2015, 01:16:41 AM
 #97

i would never trust a "bitcoin bank" with any of my funds. i fully trust myself into managing my private keys thus my funds.
there is a saying : with bitcoin you have a bank in your pocket. my pocket. and that's how i like it.
nachoig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252


View Profile
March 20, 2015, 02:15:37 AM
 #98

Not every country has deposit insurance or serious audits,

Certainly, and if I lived in one of those countries I wouldn't deposit my local currency into a bank.

and also, deposit insurance schemes has limits.

Yes, it does.  And intelligent people are aware of those limits and make intelligent decisions about how to protect their assets.

The problem here goes beyond an individual. What happens if you are a business?

And in some cases, I think deposit insurance isn't sufficient if a too big bank fails.

This has never been true in the United States.  Are you aware of any examples of specific situations anywhere globally where an in insured deposit wasn't covered due to the bank being "too big"?

I don't know any case, this is more an speculation. What I know from where I live, in Brazil we have the Fundo Garantidor de Créditos (FGC) (by the way, unlike other deposit insurance systems, FGC is private-owned, but it works more like as a parastatal entity). The FGC has assets in about 35 billion Brazilian Reals. But it covers more than 800 billion Brazilian Real in bank deposits, so if some of the biggest banks fails, probably FGC will fail too. I remember I had seen an interview with someone from FGC addimiting this, but I didn't found the link now. It seems the idea behind FGC is more likely to avoid a contamination crysis caused by fails from small and medium banks strike the biggest ones. Also, its intervention on two medium-seize banks caused a lot of controverse and there are serious accusations of fraud in these interventions (in Portuguese).

http://exame.abril.com.br/revista-exame/edicoes/1026/noticias/salvar-ou-deixar-quebrar
http://epoca.globo.com/tempo/noticia/2013/08/o-novo-escandalo-na-bancarrota-do-banco-cruzeiro-do-sul.html

Edit: Google Translator links:
https://translate.google.com.br/translate?sl=pt&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fexame.abril.com.br%2Frevista-exame%2Fedicoes%2F1026%2Fnoticias%2Fsalvar-ou-deixar-quebrar&edit-text=&act=url
https://translate.google.com.br/translate?sl=pt&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fepoca.globo.com%2Ftempo%2Fnoticia%2F2013%2F08%2Fo-novo-escandalo-na-bancarrota-do-banco-cruzeiro-do-sul.html&edit-text=&act=url
yeponlyone
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
March 20, 2015, 05:33:49 AM
 #99

Trezor + split paper wallet.  Easy peasy.
Trezor is much more expensive than generating a secure paper wallet. In most circumstances, a paper wallet would work just fine.
redsn0w
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


# Free market


View Profile
March 20, 2015, 07:10:14 AM
 #100

i would never trust a "bitcoin bank" with any of my funds. i fully trust myself into managing my private keys thus my funds.
there is a saying : with bitcoin you have a bank in your pocket. my pocket. and that's how i like it.

Bitcoin bank is an useless thing and especially not compatible with the bitcoin ideology. I have read in a lot of site "be your own bank" because a wallet unders some circumstances is considered your own bank, so it's not necessary a real bank with a lot of bitcoin (it will be a good target for malicious user).
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!