pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @TSW OP 21 Nov 2023 \ parent \ on: How would you attack self-custody? bitcoin
Curious to learn why you would use a 2:2 and not a 2:3 or another setup where you protect yourself from a single point of failure?
This has been written about by others who make good points about the 3rd being superfluous. A 3rd key adds the complexity of where you store it, practicing recovery etc. I'm sure there are cases for it but I don't think added failure proofing is one of them.
With 2:2 the average pleb can simply have a clean laptop and 1 hww safely. One key given to family for inheritance, the other with a secret dead man switch.
That covers most usecases without added user fuckup risk.
reply
That covers most usecases without added user fuckup risk.
I thought biggest user fuckup risk is to lose their keys? And having two separate keys you're not allowed to lose makes this even worse?
reply
I would argue the same. I have never seen anyone recommending this setup.
reply
I can't find the post I'm thinking of that backs me up, created a new discussion on this in hopes the crowd can find it:
reply
Can you link some sources for that 2:2 setup. Thanks
reply
I can't find it for the life of me... made a new thread requesting help in the search and to facilitate this discussion:
reply