Hacker News Reader

Comment by sillysaurus3 | Hacker News Reader

I agree that Coinbase itself should be using multisig, but the point of my comment is that if customers themselves aren't using multisig, their coins' fate is completely in Coinbase's hands. And Coinbase multisig won't save those coins from tech problems, willful theft, or a breach in their security model. Multisig offers you no benefits if you're not the one in control.

Are you sure you want to trust your fortune to three or five employees?

View on HN

> Multisig offers you no benefits if you're not the one in control.

That's a little extreme. I would trust a lot more in five employees than in one. If done right, each one of them could even not know who the other employees are.

> Are you sure you want to trust your fortune to three or five employees?

I wouldn't trust anyone with my precious coins :p. I'm just saying the same way we (supposedly) decentralize control on nuclear bombs, we can decentralize control on bitcoins. I feel safer knowing that no single soldier can launch a nuclear bomb, even if I don't have any control over that.

What happens if one of the five employees loses their key? Aren't you increasing the risk of bricked coins with each signature that you require? Do you really want your coins to be at risk of brick by three or five CoinBase employees?

Then make the scheme 4 of 5, or 3 of 5. Besides, the company could keep a backup of the keys in physical locations, and secure them with traditional physical security.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com