amythius wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:19 pm
But I can pass some information regarding. My guess is you largely don't understand 'crypto-currencies', so I will work off that assumption.
I understand cryptocurrencies pretty well, and I disagree with your post (apart from the basic description of cryptocurrencies, which is fine and useful). I assume you didn't mean it this way, but starting out like this reads as pretty patronizing.
There is no more physical threat regarding crypto-currencies than any other item of value.
This is definitely not true. In fact, it's kind of hard to understand how such a statement could be true, given that the physical threat is not even uniform across all other
items of value.
The physical threat related to an item of value is influenced by the difficulty of stealing it, and the value it has once stolen.
Cars, for example, have a pretty high physical threat. They are hard to hide, easy to steal (they provide the escape method!), and they are pretty valuable once stolen. Houses, on the other hand, have a very low physical threat. They're quite bulky and difficult to fence. You are much more likely to be car-jacked, for example, than house-jacked (note that a home-invasion robbery is superficially similar, but not the same. They don't steal your house).
So, is owning Bitcoin exactly as risky from a physical threat point of view as owning a car? Or as owning a house? It can't be both! Is it more, or less? It's... different.
Just as houses and cars have different threat surfaces, there is a different threat surface for cryptocurrencies, but it's not obvious to me that the threat surface is smaller
than most other items of value.
Some of the very features that make cryptocurrencies desirable to hold make them particularly risky from a physical threat point of view. Difficulty of tracing, lack of an ownership system based on the legal system, and extreme portability all combine to make it a particularly appealing theft target.
Yes, the fact that one can keep their cryptocurrency ownership a secret is certainly helpful, but... not as helpful as you'd like in reducing physical risk.
For one, many crypto-millionaires were quite vocal in the early days of BTC. Many of them were early activists, founders, coders, etc. Pretty hard to put that genie back in the bottle. Everyone knows. They are at risk.
There are also steps you can take to reduce the amount lost, like splitting things up into separate accounts, keeping keys in safes, safe deposit boxes, and split up into more complicated structures that require more than one person to have a key to a transfer.
However, while that reduces the risk of theft
(it limits your losses), it's hard to reduce the risk of physical violence
, because it's hard to signal to potential coercers that you have done so. Imagine that you're in the "high risk" group of well-off known early-bitcoin enthusiasts and some masked men with guns who expect you to give them $billions. I'm terribly sorry, violent men, but I'm afraid I can't do that because <technobabble>. Will they believe you? You certainly can't prove it to them. Be prepared to lose some fingers to convince them of your sincerity.