This has been my single biggest argument against blockchain/cryptocurrency stuff for years: the "lose your key, lose your wallet" thing is fundamentally incompatible with real users.
Humans need to be able to recover from their mistakes.
Maybe it's my memory playing tricks, or I've only seen the good articles, but I believe nearly every single article about setting up a self-managed crypto wallet had stressed out the importance of having a backup. Serious ones had even explained the 3-2-1 rule. Then the hype came, with it came scams and pumps-and-dumps and NFTs and whatever, and crypto became a clusterfuck that a lot of people didn't want to touch. Yuck.
That's probably the one thing cryptocurrency communities undeniably got right. Quite unlike the Passkeys, where I've yet to see any official or semi-official demo site that even has a flow for adding a second token (some actual sites do, but not the demos).
We should start teaching basic backup strategies in schools. It's not some advanced rocket science, and it's a knowledge that's useful to anyone who deals with information (that is, literally anyone participating in the modern society).
Also, this user unfriendliness is extremely temporary, because computers and Internet are new (at the scale of societies), and there are plenty of folks who had only started to use them later in their lives. After you lose some file or account (ideally, as a kid, so it's not something serious) you start to understand the old adage about those whose do backups and those who don't do them _yet_.
As for email... Sure, I guess it depends on the service and their policies. But here's an anecdote. A few years ago, I've managed to log in in to a completely forgotten 10+ years old email account, finding its password in an old backup. It worked. ¯\(ツ)/¯
If an user cannot log in with a valid credentials, without brute-forcing them, after some years of absence, it's absolutely the service's fault. Of course, in the modern world, customer issues mean nothing so anything goes. But -quoting GP post - when designing a "fantasy football" alternate authentication system for the Internet, this probably shouldn't be a thing.
yes, the advice about wallets is “make a backup”. the advice about passwords is “don’t reuse them”, yet the VAST majority of users use the same password for banking, email, and their phone provider. so what do you think the chances are that your average user makes a backup of their wallet AND remember where it is in three years?
pretty much zero.
Yes, this is why it is incompatible with widespread adoption. Most people do not want to do this, and in fact could not do so effectively without learning and thinking a good deal more about computers and risk scenarios, which they don’t want to do and will not do.
You are correct that it is a solution. However, it is not a solution that will ever be adopted on a wide scale.
Yes, and I think that's not because they don't want to do it but because:
1) they don't know that they should do this; 2) they don't know why should they do this; 2) they don't know how to do this; 3) because even the systems marketed as current state-of-art (Passkeys) are poorly designed and don't even allow to have proper 3-2-1 backups conveniently (can't enroll a device sitting in a safe, it must be physically brought online which beats the whole point of offsite backups).
Design it to make backups and failover secure yet easy, available out-of-box, and explicitly recommending best practices to follow - and everyone will do it as a no-brainer, at least for anything they care about.
Until recently no one told people to not reuse passwords. Even today most password-based signup forms just ask for password and maybe tell the requirements (length, characters) but extremely rarely they explain anything about uniqueness, randomness or anything else. No surprise it sucks hard in practice, when nearly everyone ignores the education aspect.
People aren't stupid. At least in general. They're just blissfully unaware about a lot of things, especially the older generations. What is impossible in real world is designing a fantasy football nanny authentication system to "safeguard" them, without making a lot of undesirable sacrifices. We manage to explain people to not poke with scissors into electrical outlets (and make it hard to do so accidentally) - we can manage similar stuff with computers too.
I don't think this is a good analogy, because the example is simply warning people of a thing not to do. It takes no effort. Maintaining backups does take effort. This is more like getting people to pick up a new chore, just like how many people see interacting with their bank and financial services as a chore.
Many people who work in IT (or are into computers as a hobby) discount the effort it takes, because there is a lot less friction between them and computers than for the average person.
> even the systems marketed as current state-of-art (Passkeys) are poorly designed and don't even allow to have proper 3-2-1 backups conveniently (can't enroll a device sitting in a safe, it must be physically brought online which beats the whole point of offsite backups). Design it to make backups and failover secure yet easy, available out-of-box, and explicitly recommending best practices to follow - and everyone will do it as a no-brainer, at least for anything they care about.
People have been saying this for a long time. "We just need a better system!" The system doesn't exist because people don't want a system that requires effort. It requires effort to protect a secret that, if leaked or lost, would irreversibly result in your financial ruin. It requires a lot less ongoing effort (to a non computer savvy person) to use financial institutions to store their money securely.
People will choose the system that safeguards them and makes sacrifices that many computer security and freedom oriented people will find undesirable. This is demonstrated by the choices that people have repeatedly made.
The idea is that user shouldn't have any friction, besides meeting minimal requirements: 1) being capable of reading (or otherwise accessing the text) and comprehending simple instructions; and 2) having certain minimally required hardware or software installed.
I'm sure this is doable and every primitive to build this already exists and vetted by competent people. I'm sure it's possible for a layman non-technical person with normal cognitive capabilities to have a safe authentication solution (which is very different from data backups) with full ownership of their identities and credentials.
Sure there are people that cannot read or cannot comprehend things. A lot of people. I've seen way too many folks who had simple and clear ELI5-grade instructions with zero technical jargon - and nonetheless had failed to follow them because "computers hard". In some case it's the fault of UI or UX, but I strongly believe in most cases it's just learned helplessness - "computers are not my thing and they're hard" and brain shuts off instead of even trying to read. The only solutions are to 1) make them actually interested in achieving their goals (worked for my dad - man went from "I don't know and don't understand [and 'I don't want to' in the tone], order this for me" to suddenly figuring it all out and placing online orders in just a few minutes as soon as he actually needed something when I wasn't around to help), and 2) make sure they have all materials accessible, well structured and covering as many possible scenarios as possible so it's all there the moment they snap out of their learned helplessness. Nothing else works as it is fundamentally impossible to design anything that would work even if people don't read and don't think.
I have some sketches in my mind, specifically focusing on use by laypeople without making compromises about fundamentals (like what is identity - a lot of modern auth perverts this concept badly). I'll give it a try someday, actually drawing it all and writing notes on the inner workings. Wish there'd be a ten of me and we'd have 240 hours a day... Sorry.
> This is demonstrated by the choices that people have repeatedly made.
I'm afraid this is a very bad attitude to follow. The choices people had repeatedly made got us in quite a bad place. Just look at the poster child - IoT - it's a complete disaster. Online auth is in a very similar poor and messed up state, it just less visible.
I wish you luck in your development of such a system. I don't disagree with anything you said about learned helplessness, and I think it can be fruitful to push individuals or groups to overcome it, but I think trying to do that to the general populace is like trying to change the wind.
People should have a choice which system suits them more.
This is simply about what choice the majority of people have made, and likely will continue to make.
Possible disapproval by fine HN community.
The problem though is that since one has a number of passwords which may be different but closely related, a human may be able to infer a few possible passwords from a few compromised ones. In other words it still dramatically shrinks the key space an attacker might want to try to brute force. Preventing re-use is then a problem for 2fa regimes.
For my part I won't use passwords I cannot memorize and keep memorized in relation to the web site.
You're allowed to store your key at the bank if this is an issue for you. It's less secure than memorizing it, but obviously equally as secure as your bank account is.
Multisig is a pretty common setup for crypto and there is software that makes it easier.
And to think the conversation started with an observation that people can't even remember one password.
A safe deposit box may be affected by other things and if those things happen they don't have to "make it right", if you go to the courts and make your case you may find that they are not at fault and you are not owed any compensation.
There is a long history here of once trusted institutions turning out to be fraudulent.
By making a bank the custodian of your crypto wallet, you're placing your trust in them and should have similar legal recourse you would have had with a fiat deposit.
As far as I know all the cases of stolen crypto have been newly founded companies with their only business being your crypto. That is quite unlike the other kind of bank.
Even if you are referring to digital storage managed by the bank, presumably competently enough to avoid data loss, if that data is exfiltrated your wallet will be drained. It would be very difficult for a hacker to irreversibly drain your bank account (given the type and terms of the account, but will apply to most savings accounts), due to the protection and delay systems in place meant to catch fraudulent or unauthorized activity. Note that this definition of “unauthorized” actually means “not authorized by the human being who owns this account”, instead of the crypto definition of “not authorized by someone who knows the correct secret”.
Humans have been unable to recover from mistakes since day zero
Digital things, not so much. I'm a professional in the field, yet I've lost digital data in the past few years. Normal users who work in other fields? Lost cause.
Yes obviously if your money is completely burned then it's gone, but that is generally pretty unlikely to happen. Losing your digital key is many orders of magnitude more likely to happen in my opinion. And there is - by design - absolutely no way to get it back. That makes using blockchain for anything serious completely untenable in my opinion.
"No redemption will be made when (...) Fragments and remnants presented which represent 50% or less of a note are identifiable as United States currency but the method of destruction and supporting evidence do not satisfy the Treasury that the missing portion has been totally destroyed"
Not that unlikely, in my opinion.
Which is (one reason) why most people use a bank account and don't hide their money in big bundle of cash under their pillow?
With cryptocurrencies at least you have an option, you can leave it at a custodial wallet that can manage some of the security for you or you can have a non-custodial wallet.
Quickly you end up in a situation that either starts to look like how financial companies keep their most high risk keys, or end up outsourcing the whole thing to something that quickly starts to resemble your bank.
So ultimately it's just like cash: Fine for small amounts. Risky, but maybe livable for somewhat larger accounts, or a giant headache that will probably bite you when you start looking at lifetime savings.
If I lose $1 note. It’s gone. If I recover it, then it’s no longer lost.
Of course you may choose to encode your wallet key on paper, metal, or stone granting it properties not unlike a note. However you have now compromised the security of your wallet as well it becomes no mere $1 note, rather it is a note that represents all or a significant fraction of your net worth.
But you’re reinventing money with extra steps.
But you gain some desirable properties over traditional money.
Without crypto, you don't have frictionless and permissionless transfers of arbitrary value across international borders.
Eg, if you shard a key into three pieces and each person carries one through security, did anyone actually transport the money through?
While an interesting difference to study, the average person is not going to care about the former case. They just don't want to keep their life savings in an asset as easy to loose as their pocket money.
Bring to where ? Are you mapping the crypto wallet concept to the physical wallet concept as a mobile storage concept ?
All your money is the limit, however you store it.
you didnt need to bring a case of cash to buy anything before the 20th century
(Of course it’s a bit more complicated: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ICCard_Connection_en... – but still impressive nonetheless!)
What most bitcoin fans seem not to understand is that for the vast majority of people, transactions being reversible by authority figures is desirable.
Yeah, but if I lose the physical 100$ I am carrying, that doesn't prevent me from accessing the rest of my cash stored elsewhere.
I've never lost access to the rest of my cash stored elsewhere.
Ideally, you connect Vault to a HSM if you need that kind of security that’s being described. HSMs are electronic safes
The website says "10 minutes against forced entry". That's not safe.
No safe is safe against a state level actor. No safe is safe against "hit you with a crowbar until you open the safe".
Whatever secrets you have, it's better to hide them than to put them in such a conspicuous place. The only reason one should use a safe is as a plausible decoy...
If you have state level actors physically breaking into your facilities then we might be at war
I am referring to Shamir algorithm that Vault uses
By geographically distributing your signing devices you improve both security and reliability. One of those keys can be hosted by a third party to be used for recovery, without providing them any ability to touch your funds without your involvement.
>This has been my single biggest argument against fiat currency stuff for years: the "lose your money, lose your money" thing is fundamentally incompatible with real users. Humans need to be able to recover from their mistakes.
And yet, for the very longest time, it was the default position for humans.
This would make currency fundamentally incompatible with real users. Reality says otherwise.
If I have a duffel bag of money, it is obvious that physical possession of the bills means I can access its value. Anything negating that possession would cost me my money. I should probably keep it away from open flames and water; but it's not going to spontaneously combust. A thief would need to physically take the money in the duffel bag for me to lose the value.
Meanwhile if I store Bitcoin on a USB drive the drive might randomly fail and I lose all my money (because I'm actually storing a key to access it) even though I still have the USB stick. The solution is to back up my key in multiple places simultaneously, which doesn't make sense to most people (how can money be in two places at once?)
If I plug the USB stick into the wrong computer, someone can steal all my money (because they can find out what the key is) without me ever losing the USB stick.
Virtually every human on Earth understands the notions of object permanence and that objects can be exchanged for other objects. This is intuitive from evolution and actual monkeys can comprehend physical currency.[1] I don't see how cryptocurrency can be on that level.
[1]. https://www.zmescience.com/research/how-scientists-tught-mon...
In reality I've found a lost wallet and helped return it to its owner. At least twice, actually. Both times because there was an identifying name in the wallet.
Then there's the time as a kid when we found $60 on the floor at a department store, and turned it over to lost&found. I remember it because the store had a policy that if cash hadn't been claimed for a month, then the person who turned it in got it. Which we did.
Maybe the issue is trying to force one solution for everyone.