10 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b OP 10 Jan 2023 \ parent \ on: [bitcoin-dev] OP_VAULT: a new vault proposal bitcoin
When you put it that way, it does feel like vaults are a lateral move security-wise.
Vaults appear more user friendly though. I can imagine my dad understanding and feeling comfortable with how a vault works. When I explain mutli-sig, I usually end up reaching for nuclear codes/keys as a metaphor.
I feel like the reality is that most non-bitcoiners in the world will be onboarded using L2 and likely will never touch a UTXO.
Trying to make things 'easy' or to build in 'safety nets' to base layer is the wrong move I think. I think it is better to build vaults and covenants etc in L2 somehow: If there is a market for it people will use it.
Base protocol needs to be unforgiving and absolute. You either have the keys or you don't. If keys are taken and funds are moved, that is just the way it is.
reply
I'm not so sure your dad would be comfortable with vaults if you explained how they worked correctly... The name "vault" has nothing to do with how they actually work.
Multisig is much simpler to explain properly. And it has direct real world analogies like multi-signature bank accounts.
reply
I didn't mean the vault analogy is apt (although I have to admit it's good marketing). If-this-then-that UX does seem more straightforward than multi-sig combinatorics even if it's mostly a placebo.
Honestly, this is the first I've heard of multi-sig bank accounts. I need more money.
reply
“even if it's mostly a placebo”
We should be creating real solutions. Not placebos.
reply