pull down to refresh
It all depends on what's the objective.
- You want bitcoin to be widely adopted and become the de facto world-wide unit of account? Then it will only happen by having trusted third parties taking care of every and any technicism so that people can use it like a normal bank account.
- You want bitcoin to remain a highly specialized asset in the hands of a negligible few able to deal with the technicisms of self management? You are on the right track.
I insist: putting the responsibility on the user side for not having a PHD on thermodynamics in order to be able to buy bread at the store is the worst possible take on the incident, as it makes sure the exact same incident will repeat again in the exact same way.
This whole thing reminds me of linux neck-bearded nerds: they act like if not knowing how to use the computer by interacting directly with the kernel is a sin and assume everyone should know, and scoff on those who don't know. They assume their world must be everyone's. But 99.99% of people just want to send an email and buy that new appliance from amazon. The exact same scenario applies to bitcoin.
Exactly. Yet still you have here the hur-dur purists insisting on making the exact same mistake all over again...
Me too. You know what's funny? I never liked the idea of buying a HW because I always distrusted the idea. I have always been more a fan of making my own with an ESP32.
Exactly! You see? You can't escape that layer of abstraction if the solution is to be an actual product for the masses. This is just the principle of work division in action.
My argument is that whatever the solution, if it's to be effective, it will unavoidably add a layer of abstraction between the user and bitcoin which many in the community strongly refuse, and actively advise against. My point is that they shouldn't.
For instance, the solution to this problem existed already: coldcard included in their instructions that for full safety a source of entropy external to the device should be used in order for the generated keys to be safe. That's something known from day one. Yet, most people is averse to that kind of complexity and if faced with it most will inevitably drift towards shortcuts. Thus, this was bound to happen.
I have had this rant since very long ago. The obsessive focus on highly technical approaches as "the one true way towards adoption" will get most people rekt simply because they will fuck up at some point without them ever realizing. Most if not all of the affected users have no clue what "entropy" even means.
I have said this before and I repeat it: the future of bitcoin is centralized. Not a currency, but digital gold managed by independent mints. People will use coins supported by bitcoin, not bitcoin itself. It's the only way.
I use twitter regularly yet didn't even bother to look. Got the RSS feed right here. Very reassuring also. Though, this is still a major disaster. The Titanic sank.
It's disheartening how bad the US, the undisputed world-wide liberty champion, has regressed on such a seminal matter.
Appreciation comment to the community:
I have always got a fair amount of attention on my posts and comments. I have been mentioned in some of the youtube episodes, and tend to appear every now and then in the "This Day on SN" digests. I have been summoned by some of you asking for my opinion on serious matters. All of this despite my minimal interactions. That means you took me seriously and your interactions have been honest. I really appreciate that. Cheers SN :)
To solve The Paradox of Bitcoin Adoption. Probably along the lines discussed here.
Enjoyed all answers, hilarious. This mentality pervades open-source in general. Same kind of expressions are common among the Linux community, particularly from leaders of "the one true distro" projects.