Hacker News Reader

Comment by mschuster91 | Hacker News Reader

Quite likely that governments will force exchange operators to get appropriate security. Hell if I had the keys (or were in a position to be used as "leverage" for them in a kidnapping) to a Bitcoin exchange, I would surround me with a bunch of ex-military guards.

View on HN

Now (depending on the country) how do you trust the ex-military guards, if what they are guarding is worth far more than their salaries?

While that sound smart and plausible, I would assume that there is some solution to that problem, otherwise how would private security work at all?

A security guard selling the Mona Lisa has to figure out how to get rid of it. Bitcoin's quite a bit easier in that regard.

Be in a country with the rule of law.

Structure things so if they betray you, they have a very high chance of getting detected and needing to go on the run - e.g. access control records, CCTV and whatnot.

Then hire guards who would have to sacrifice a lot if they went on the run permanently. e.g. guards with partners, school-age children, extended family nearby, friends, and community ties like membership of voluntary organisations, churches or clubs.

This is bullshit, exchanges with the most rudimentary technology will not keep their funds under a single private key held by one single person at all times. Multi-sig exists.

> Multi-sig exists.

Multi-sig does not prevent anyone from kidnapping me and distributing a video "sign us all your btc funds or this dude is going to get tortured".

Well sure, but the executives of the exchange signing that transaction would actually be a violation of the law, because they are custodians of their customers' funds and not all customers may agree in saving their executive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com