This completely talks past what the person you're replying to is saying: it doesn't matter if "hardware based security is [...] the only way," because its conspicuous absence indicates that even the experts fail to meet the onerous requirements placed on them by cryptocurrency.

Yeah, this only highlights how ridiculous the requirements are.

The system needs to be tolerant of failures and faults of multiple natures. And cryptocurrency is very intolerant or many types of failures and faults.

Well his PGP key was compromised too.

So why is crypto the only thing getting attention?

My speculation there would be that PGP's usability weaknesses have been known for decades, and so there isn't all that much to be said about it.

When someone writes:

> Soon you will see people saying you should have done this or that complicated thing

and you answer:

> Is his PGP key on his hardrive or a smartcard?

you're proving their point.

But is it a reasonable point?

I would assume that if you are a major player in the bitcoin world, you should do complicated things to secure yourself.

Its sort of like if someone wins the lottery, and tells the world they are putting the money under their mattress in their home. Its not unreasonable to say that such a person faces more risk than an ordinary person and should install an alarm system or something.

You would assume. But, empirically, users don't - even users who should know better. Users don't. If your model doesn't take that into account, your model is broken.

The Bitcoin model is broken. It very intentionally got rid of all the institutions that regulate and control finance, and in doing so, it got rid of everything that protects regular people from the wolves. The regular people aren't up to the task of protecting themselves, and they regularly show it. The model is broken.

So to be clear - i agree that bitcoin is a shitshow, haven for fraudsters and generally sucks.

But to the specific point, there is no model that fully takes this into account. There is no model that puts risk to zero. There will always be adversaries that can attack you if the payoff is large enough. There will always be people with increased risk exposure who have to take special precautions because the effort/reward calculus makes sense for malicious people to attack them.

The reason bitcoin sucks is not because its model includes such situations; it sucks because the bar for someone to be the type of person who has to care about such things in bitcoin is so much lower than in traditional banking.

Exactly they are ignoring that this is a solved problem.

If you don't take up the easy convenient solution to your problem that's on you.

Hopefully this is a starting red flag for the bitcoin Dev team to implement hardware wallet support.

Why is it his PGP key being compromised proves bitcoin is bad?

That's the absurd confirmation bias going on in this thread.

Cryptos piffy catchphrase is be your own bank. you can own security far beyond a bank vault for like £40 if you get a ledger nano...

a really obtuse and clueless response which literally makes the previous posters post for them by dint of its cluelessness