Quote from: DaveF on Today at 12:56:43 PM

Or they could just use an inexpensive hardware wallet and have 2 wallets on their machine. One that is password protected and the other that needs the HW wallet. Or another form of cold storage and only move when needed.

Quote from: Satnamakoto on November 26, 2021, 05:19:21 PM

Security protocols must be constantly updated. If we have learned anything from technology, it is that sooner or later they become obsolete. BitGrail, KuCoin, MtGox, Coincheck to mention a few, they relied too much on their security protocols, when talking about money the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is not valid.

Would not have mattered for any of those
BitGrail was 99% a inside job
MtGox was a disaster from the start with no security at all.
Coincheck did not loose BTC they lost an alt.
KuCoin lost a bunch of different coins / tokens and while some was BTC it was from a hot wallet that an exchange needs to function. They need to have a large amount always available to be able to function. Needing human intervention with anything means that you don't need some fancy new setup for security or ANY new setup for security. If there had to be a human there to verify the BTC move then it would not have happened since they would have seen the issue.

-Dave

the fact of their losses is the result of non-existent or obsolete security measures, that is the strong point of this project, limiting the risk of loss, currently anyone with access to a private key can empty the wallet completely, the same with multi-signatures always 2-3, 3-5 should be used. With this project, even if a subwallet has 10000BTC is hacked, your risk of losing will be the amount stipulated by you and not the total of the funds.