Some people hesitate to buy Bitcoin because they worry that quantum computers might one day break it.
Yet, those same people trust their life savings to a simple 4-digit PIN at a bank.
Consider this:
A Bitcoin private key is 256 bits, giving roughly 10^77 possible combinations. Cracking it is effectively impossible with any technology we can foresee.
A standard 4-digit bank PIN has only 10,000 possible combinations — something that could be guessed in an afternoon.
One system is virtually unbreakable. The other can be cracked in hours. And people feel safer with the latter.
Does this illustrate a problem with human risk perception, or is Bitcoin’s security just too abstract for most to trust?
I think the PIN is only one layer of security for a bank account, whereas if someone cracks your bitcoin private key, there's nothing you can do to stop them from draining your wallet other than sending it to an address controlled by another key before they can.
You're right. А PIN is just one layer in banking security. Banks have fraud monitoring and can often reverse unauthorized transactions. For example, my brother had money taken from his account for a supposed Microsoft 365 subscription he never bought. He reported it immediately, and the bank said they'd investigate. Two years later, they're still "investigating," and the money hasn't been refunded. With self-custodied Bitcoin, if someone gets your private key, the funds are gone irreversibly—no one to call, no reversal possible (except racing to move them first if you notice in time).
Both systems have trade-offs. Тraditional banking offers some recourse (though it can be slow or unsuccessful), while proper Bitcoin self-custody gives true ownership but zero safety net if you mess up or get compromised. It really depends on your priorities and how carefully you manage security.