Hacker News

points by nl 5 hours ago | 0 comments

I don't think the security trade-off for most people is clear here.

Given things like the ledger hardware attack[1] I think the time indexed risk of using a centralized exchange is probably lower than doing self-custody.

I understand that many people do self-custody for philosophical reasons, but I think trying to disguise this as a security decision ("If your crypto was stolen in this, it wasn't your crypto.") is arguable at best.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/70f69253-6017-4259-95c9-48bf0e088...

[–] done_lurking 53 minutes ago

Self custody doesn't require using a hardware ledger, and such gadgets represent a very small minority of self-custody wallets. In addition, there are noteworthy non-security risks when using an exchange. There's fraud, illiquidity, new legislation, asset forfeiture, and innumerable other reasons why an exchange might prevent you from withdrawing your funds. I think it's naive to suggest that self-custody is just a novelty with no value.

[–] nl 19 minutes ago

> Self custody doesn't require using a hardware ledger

Does this mean you recommend not using one? Because that goes against all the common best practice recommendations from when I did a couple of years working in Web3 stuff a few years back.

> I think it's naive to suggest that self-custody is just a novelty with no value.

That's not what I suggested.

I suggested that it is less secure over time than centralized exchanges, even with the things you listed.