pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @standardcrypto 23 Apr \ on: How to Build the Ultimate Bandaid Wallet bitcoin
Nice chart!
except I would say
"delegated custody" instead of "custodial"
"self custody, self infra" instead of "self hosted"
"self custody, delegated infra" instead of "bandaid wallet"
I would also note that a somewhat analogous situation exists for L1 wallets where, eg, electrum spv wallet is "self custody, delegated infra"
You need to trust your infra provider even with something like electrum. IE, they can't fake work in blocks but they can withhold blocks so it seems like a payment never confirms, they can also choose which block to provide if there is a split.
Wonderful feature of bitcoin though is it makes it as safe to delegate infra as possible, from an engineering tradeoff view. IE, never completely as safe as self infra, but pretty much safe enough in most circumstances even when dealing with big transfers worth millions of dollars.
hey thanks for the reply. largely agree with all your points, however the trust assumptions on the infra provider mean that while you may hold keys, it doesn't mean you have unilateral control, which is something we value.
electrum spv, i think isn't the best example though there are others because there are many you can rely on, and you can rely on many at once (reducing the likelihood of being successfully sybil'd).
but pretty much safe enough in most circumstances even when dealing with big transfers worth millions of dollars.
I disagree, the main intention of these systems has always been to be a form of "free, ungovernable money". The introduction of all these centralized points allow for coercion by nation-states.
If that million dollar transfer is one that a nation-state, or even the centralized entity dislikes for whatever reason (say it represents a sizable gambling win from a subsidiary owned by the same parent), they have unilateral control on the transfer.
Such is the weakness of the compromise of these wallets designs.
reply