Bitcoin Forum
April 19, 2024, 10:42:35 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
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 6852 times)
iGotSpots
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2548
Merit: 1054


CPU Web Mining 🕸️ on webmining.io


View Profile WWW
March 19, 2015, 04:40:50 PM
 #81

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

1713566555
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713566555

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1713566555
Reply with quote  #2

1713566555
Report to moderator
1713566555
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713566555

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1713566555
Reply with quote  #2

1713566555
Report to moderator
1713566555
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713566555

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1713566555
Reply with quote  #2

1713566555
Report to moderator
Bitcoin addresses contain a checksum, so it is very unlikely that mistyping an address will cause you to lose money.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
Xapo (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
March 19, 2015, 04:52:15 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.

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 (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
March 19, 2015, 07:49:20 PM
 #83

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: 555
Merit: 507



View Profile
March 19, 2015, 08:15:25 PM
 #84

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
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 19, 2015, 10:24:44 PM
 #85

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
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 19, 2015, 11:20:32 PM
 #86

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: 3052
Merit: 1047

Your country may be your worst enemy


View Profile
March 19, 2015, 11:31:43 PM
 #87

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.

I used to be a citizen and a taxpayer. Those days are long gone.
Slaxt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250

Gone......


View Profile
March 19, 2015, 11:40:21 PM
 #88

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
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 19, 2015, 11:57:36 PM
 #89

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: 3360
Merit: 4570



View Profile
March 20, 2015, 12:13:47 AM
 #90

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
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 20, 2015, 01:16:41 AM
 #91

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
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 20, 2015, 02:15:37 AM
 #92

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
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 20, 2015, 05:33:49 AM
 #93

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: 1778
Merit: 1042


#Free market


View Profile
March 20, 2015, 07:10:14 AM
 #94

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).
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 501



View Profile
March 20, 2015, 07:36:17 AM
 #95

Irrational fear mongering.

https://blog.xapo.com/the-risk-of-holding-your-investors-private-keys/

Centralized companies are a security risk.

Assuming they do store their clients bitcoins securely in multisig cold storage like we can also easily do.

These are the risks that you are exposed to:

1) Inside theft from employees colluding together
2) Company creating a fractional reserve and loaning out more than their reserves between audits or colluding with auditor.
3) Tax theft
4) Liability of lawsuits against Xapo or against client freezing ones assets
5) Unnecessary fees and charges to pay for security, audits, and insurance
6) centralized target for outside hackers to gravitate towards
7) Loss of privacy if Xapo monetizes your personal data and/or shares data with governments

Bitcoin is decentralized Peer to Peer cash and banking. Some people really need to read and understand the intentions and design principles of Bitcoin.
Start with the whitepaper:

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

luv2drnkbr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 793
Merit: 1016



View Profile
March 20, 2015, 11:27:57 AM
 #96

No but I trust everybody else less.  (I answered "Yes 100%" to the survey because that was the closest.)

AtheistAKASaneBrain
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 509


View Profile
March 20, 2015, 12:29:49 PM
 #97

No but I trust everybody else less.  (I answered "Yes 100%" to the survey because that was the closest.)
Truuu, but I would trust someone that is professional about storage, regardless if you trust yourself a lot, because human error is unavoidable.
madmat
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 20, 2015, 12:52:28 PM
 #98

No but I trust everybody else less.  (I answered "Yes 100%" to the survey because that was the closest.)
Truuu, but I would trust someone that is professional about storage, regardless if you trust yourself a lot, because human error is unavoidable.

Best idea is to pay someone who can teach you how to secure your keys by yourself, so you will know he can't steal you Wink

This guy is a professional about  storage. I prefer to trust myself.

Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3206
Merit: 1069



View Profile
March 20, 2015, 01:46:31 PM
Last edit: March 20, 2015, 05:12:13 PM by Amph
 #99

obviously yes, bitcoin is born to make people like us , who like to be self-bank, more prominent

i fly low, just 3 usb stick with wallet.dat as backup some on the exchange and the rest on the client, i'm still unsure if i should create others wallet...
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 20, 2015, 02:03:19 PM
 #100

Well looking at all the currently available possibilities of storing them, yes. Trusting someone else with the keys makes Bitcoin somehow lose its point.
Actually if you don't own the private keys, you don't really own the Bitcoins on that address. I'm saying this because of the exchanges and online wallets. Keeping coins there is a bad idea, just as trusting someone with keys is.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!