pull down to refresh
47 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby OP 22 Jul \ parent \ on: OnRamp guy says self-custody is the reason mass adoption hasn't happened bitcoin
Being able to listen and actually hear the tradfi viewpoint is a huge benefit to Bitcoin land. I am always a little startled when I talk about finance/investing with my friends who are not bitcoiners. You are spot on that we get down in the rabbit hole and forget that it's a pretty niche little world and not everybody thinks like this.
When I've listened to some of the OnRamp folks talk about their products, they say a lot of sane things: self-custody is too scary, unfamiliar for most people in the market right now, certainly a heavy lift for family offices and high net worth types. It's not like they are way off base there (but I do think they are off base when they start acting like giving your bitcoin to some institutions is greater than or equal to self-custody).
But I do wonder what the implications of this kind of thinking are.
Sure. I see this. What I want to know is 1) does this also mean the masses are never going to self-custody, and if so 2) does this change the security model of bitcoin?
I think what we need is patience. In a generation or two self-custody may become more likely. From what I see... people my age and older are not gonna do it on mass. It has implications for sure. I'm not sure I'm ready to change bitcoin because of this tough. I think we need patience.
Its not that people CAN'T self custody. Its laziness. I don't see how you can expect people that refuse to manage passwords securely to self-custody.
reply
I wasn't suggesting we attempt any change to bitcoin, rather that we should check our assumptions: if censorship resistance is built on the idea that bitcoiners will run nodes that enforce the rules, those bitcoiners need to have the keys to some bitcoin in order to make that real.
Sure, the ETF holders can raise a stink, but how would they even know what rules Blackrock is running on whatever node verifies the bitcoin it buys?