But if you have a billion dollars of gold in your basement, you should be very, very paranoid.
Even with perfect security, you'd still be a ransom target.
It might also occur to you to diversify out of the thing that puts you at risk. Maybe there's even some sort of establishment that can hold funds more securely. He should look into that.
To answer your question, actually, yes, it's almost proven to be the most effective measurement for one's safety: don't want to get hurt? Don't let people find you: get in a forest/ mountain range and hide.
"Or he's really right and everyone else is wrong."
added: then again, there's also something about HN's discussion structure (mainly lack of collapsing comments like Reddit has) that makes these derails get in the way much more than necessary. Reddit even has place for strings of puns without them significantly derailing the discussion.
Oh sorry what were we talking about? I thought this was the weekly "Where you should move to/away from" thread.
Why do you believe this? The concept predates widespread use of encryption and originally applied to things like physical locks. Their "security through obscurity" approach was custom mechanisms which were easily defeated shortly after development by determined thieves. This race between security experts (in their various incarnations) and security breakers (again, in their various incarnations) has been going on since the first person tried to secure some property with something more complex than a crossbar on a door. And this race continues, even in the information age, to occur in both the physical and information realms.
Thinking about it, I guess "security through obscurity" wasn't the correct term to use in the case. What I meant was simply that: there are completely valid reasons to keep your name and/ or location unknown, both for your safety, and otherwise convenience of life.
At close to 25 tonnes, and ~1.3m³, I'd like to see the engineering behind such a heist
But getting it out of there is fairly easy if you lack a conscience and have a van. If you had access to a slightly larger truck it would be easier still.
new favorite HN quote
I'm sure moving a couple cubic meters of gold isn't a problem if you're motivated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/business/arrests-made-in-m...
Are they heavily guarded?
Just wondering...
Some friends of mine trade large amounts of Bitcoin on a regular basis and there's never been much of a delay withdrawing. I doubt they are going to a bank to physically take out printed keys everyday for every transaction over $10,000 or phoning 5 people to combine keys. I bet the backups are kept in a safe deposit box, the cold wallet is likely an offline system anybody can walk up to with some kind of feeble authentication judging by past Bitcoin exchange incompetence.
Many of the smaller exchanges are using Blockchain.info wallets as their hot wallet too but won't admit it.
I think that's intended to be a feature and not a bug. With Bitcoin 'third party verification' means other people no longer use a service after you've generously sacrificed your money to demonstrate their incompetence or malice.
Prosecutors can be as intimidating as they wish, the government is free to use their magical NSA powers to recover the bitcoin. They can't compel someone to incriminate themselves. giving the wallet address to the prosecutor is effectively admitting to a crime, perhaps just conspiracy, but nonetheless that's self incrimination.
Go for memorization over tattooing.
What they can't do is say "only the person who committed this crime knows the password" and then force you to enter the password (since doing so would be self incrimination). It's when it's already known that you could enter the password that you can be compelled to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#United_States
If i had so many bitcoins as Satoshi Nakamoto i would certainly not store them in my basement. I'd split my private key using n:m scheme and store them in secure deposit boxes in banks.