Man has two more chances before $232M in Bitcoin is lost forever

Re:Man has two more chances before $232M in Bitcoin is lost ... by rendx on Sunday March 05, 2023 @07:44PM (#35036059)

I don't see how a "cryptocurrency based society" would actually work, but key management is not really the issue? You can give a copy of your key to a "bank" to hold (or even let them generate and keep it for you), use shamir's secret sharing schemes to split it for redundancy, etc. In a society where cryptocurrency was of any actual relevance, services and tools would be widely available to assist, just like you need to interface with and learn about banks today. Plenty of people in the world are still unbanked and even from those that are I would assume plenty "prefer to store cash in their mattresses".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man has two more chances before $232M in Bitcoin is lost ... by arcticbull on Sunday March 05, 2023 @08:41PM (#35036508)

Involving a third party in key management like a bank is entirely antithetical to the principles espoused in the white paper. Trustlessness is all or noting, and once you trust someone you are just doing what we do now but far less efficiently.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man has two more chances before $232M in Bitcoin is lost ... by peyton on Sunday March 05, 2023 @08:58PM (#35036623)

You’re talking about Satoshi’s whitepaper? Because it talks about escrow services, etc. What principles are you talking about?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man has two more chances before $232M in Bitcoin is lost ... by rafaelero on Sunday March 05, 2023 @09:01PM (#35036644)

Bitcoin's trustlessness is not affected by people choosing to store their keys with a centralized entity; although the same can't be said about PoS coins. It's all about giving people the option to choose their preferred method of interacting with it, each with its own pros and cons.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man has two more chances before $232M in Bitcoin is lost ... by throw0101c on Sunday March 05, 2023 @09:59PM (#35037043)

> Trustlessness is all or noting, and once you trust someone you are just doing what we do now but far less efficiently.

Not true at all, as the GP explicitly mentions Shamir's secret sharing:

> Shamir's secret sharing (SSS) is an efficient secret sharing algorithm for distributing private information (the "secret") among a group so that the secret cannot be revealed unless a quorum of the group acts together to pool their knowledge. To achieve this, the secret is mathematically divided into parts (the "shares") from which the secret can be reassembled only when a sufficient number of shares are combined.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamir%27s_secret_sharing

So you can trust various persons / entities such that m out of n need to come together before the secret is revealed. And each person doesn't need to have just one share out of n: if you trust one person more that you can give them two (or more) shares out of the n.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man has two more chances before $232M in Bitcoin is lost ... by enlyth on Sunday March 05, 2023 @08:58PM (#35036625)

> give a copy of your key to a "bank" to hold

The irony, lol.

[ Parent | on HN ]