0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Polaire 18 Jan
I don't agree with the article, it says that self-custody is riskier because there are more elements that may not work. I think the opposite is true:
- for custody: all it takes is one hack of the platform to lose everything.
- for custody with a third party: the risk is that the third party won't fulfill its role.
For me, self custody is the best solution. Yes, you have to explain how bitcoin works, but with different bitcoin scripts you can really choose the conditions. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @5centvalentine 18 Jan
I partially agree with you here, but until some sort of covenant proposal (CTV or CTV+OP_VAULT) is adopted by bitcoin, it seems like the current ways of hacking a vault together for your self custody set up is risky.
I think the article does a good job exploring all the possible pros/cons of each set up. I believe the collaborative custody inheritance model is probably best for most people, since it doesn't require the beneficiary to understand the technical aspects of self custody (although they'd be best to learn as much as they can shortly after inheriting any sizable amount of BTC). I know companies like Unchained offer a package that gives pretty detailed instructions to a beneficiary on how to recover the inheritance, even if Unchained goes out of business (they offer the config file to reconstruct the vault set up with original owner's seed + beneficiary seed).
To each their own though.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rsync25 OP 18 Jan
That's point! :)
reply