Do you trust yourself to manage your own private keys?

[X7]

This is kinda the point of be your own bank.. with the hardware wallets that exist now a days.. no excuses

[Gimpeline]

None of the banks you listed are secure. Just look at Cyprus where the money was stolen by the goverment from the "secure" banks.
I rather be my own bank than have my money in a place where it can be stolen that easy just as I would never trust any of those programs you listed with anything that has value for me.

[madmat]

I trust myself. I use electrum, so the only thing i have to secure is 12 words. They are in my head and written down partially on different hidden papers. The only scenarios where i could lose my coins is if i die or can't remember anything.

[Orangina]

Most of people that use bitcoin are against bank systems so I think the majority can manage private key on his own.
Also the banks aren't that secure !

[SueGiant]

I will not steal coins that I own. 

[hugs1BTC]

I took a while to study everything but now I can say I trust myself 100%.

[shogdite]

I took a while to study everything but now I can say I trust myself 100%.

There is a learning curve when it comes to being in control of your own wealth, problem being most of us are used to having other people (banks etc) look after it for us.
All we have to do is convince more people of the financial freedom bitcoin provides.

[Xapo]

I like how from Op's post I can feel that he thinks: people are little retarded and stupid and it would be better for them if they keep all theirs private keys and money in online storage. That way people would be 'free' from thinking about all that unnecessary stuff like 'how to secure my bitcoins'. After all someone can do this better for them...

The thing is people don't need to be retarded not to be able to handle their own private keys. They just need not be informed enough.

I'm sure (almost?) everyone on this forum are able to correctly handle their own keys but unfortunately that's not the case for most people outside.

That's true. To be honest, the results of the poll surprised me a little. I'm obviously technical (I work for Xapo), and could quite easily move my coins to mycelium (the wallet I've determined after researching, is best for those who want control of their private keys), but I think because I work here, and know the company's history, investors, dedication to security, insurance policy, and existing customers (much richer, with MUCH more to lose if anything happened to the security architecture than I do), I think the likelihood of something happening with my hardware, or paper wallet is simply more. I don't expect people to share my view on this, especially considering the libertarian, self-governing attitudes of many early bitcoin adopters. Yes, I could bury my private keys in some strategic location, but IF you trust a bitcoin bank, it's obviously easier, and I do. I would trust any company that uses deep cold storage of their private keys and has valid insurance, not just Xapo necessarily, but I know our security team personally, and they're a lot smarter than I am.

[seoincorporation]

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 you dont have the private keys, maybe the wallet service own and manage your private keys, the problem is if you want to change your wallet but keep your addys, that will not be possible because you don't have your private keys.

At last who have the privatekeys have the addys, if you trust them is on, but any time you want they can do what they want with your btc because they own your addys.

[R2D221]

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 you dont have the private keys, maybe the wallet service own and manage your private keys, the problem is if you want to change your wallet but keep your addys, that will not be possible because you don't have your private keys.

At last who have the privatekeys have the addys, if you trust them is on, but any time you want they can do what they want with your btc because they own your addys.

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

[Muhammed Zakir]

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.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

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.

[redsn0w]

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.

The better thing (in my opinion) is to use a new address each transaction, if someone knows your private key "owns" your bitcoin. It is a "strange" concept but it is normal. The best thing as I said is to use a new bitcoin address every transaction and after collect them in a wallet.

[madmat]

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.

[BillyBobZorton]

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.

[redsn0w]

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]

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]

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]

Trezor + split paper wallet.  Easy peasy.

[iGotSpots]

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