You can always find ways to make it harder for someone to get your #Bitcoin, but if you over-complicate it, you could end up making it even too hard for yourself - many lost their funds this way.
I've received many questions lately, but by far the most common question is “What's the best way to secure #Bittcoin?”
🧵So here’s a thread with my opinion on securing #Bitcoin
You can always find ways to make it harder for someone to get your #Bitcoin, but if you over-complicate it, you could end up making it even too hard for yourself - many lost their funds this way.
This means very different things for different people, depending on your technical experience, understanding of Bitcoin, how much you are holding, etc.
I strongly recommend at least learn to hold your own keys before buying, but if you can’t wait, it’s better to leave it there than holding yourself if that’d make you feel like you have no clue what’s going on.
You should make sure to never enter your backup words on a computer, learn to verify addresses on the device, and so on.
Using your own node is an important improvement in terms of security and privacy, as you cease to rely on 3rd parties for interacting with the Bitcoin network.
That someone could:
- Know which txs you're interested in - privacy issue
- Provide false information - security issue
- Go/ get shut down - resilience issue
Using your own node fix this
Here again, there are many options and a lot to learn, like supply chain attacks, retirement attacks, and other security concerns. You might come up with different answers for your specific needs.
You can consider using an airgapped laptop or an old phone to mitigate that, but there are pros and cons for any choice.
Multisig lets you mix different devices to reduce trust in each one of them, and in case one is compromised - you are still in control of your funds.
I just outlined the order I would sort by the most common approaches from the most user-friendly to the most security-minded, now it's on you to choose.
More from Crypto
We should be proud about @0xPolygon. But don't invest if you don't understand what they do just like any other asset class.
Should you invest in Polygon (Matic)?
— LearnApp (@LearnApp_co) June 12, 2021
\U0001f4a1 Here's @PrateekLearnapp's take on #Matic, as shared on @CNBCTV18News.
What are your thoughts on #Polygon (Matic)? \U0001f4ac
Read the full article here \U0001f449 https://t.co/rmLTV0WFo2#crypto #cryptocurrencies pic.twitter.com/9k1lclN7oL
I'm sure someone else has explained this, but it is just so cool and I want to explain how this works.
So Curve is awesome for swaps between similar assets, right? The fact that they trade very close to each other is a key part about how Curve works, using it's custom swap invariant function.
That's step 1
Step 2 is that Synthetix is awesome for creating "synthetic assets" (aka synths) which are assets that trade like other assets, that are backed by another, entirely different asset. Basically, a plastic banana that I can buy and sell like a real banana.
Synthetix has a feature that lets you swap between any two synths with zero slippage and a flat fee. That's because it is simply converting the sythentic asset into another synthetic asset, the backing for the synth doesn't change it just uses a different price oracle now.
This is important. Absolutely no slippage, at any size
Swap $1m sUSD for $1m sBTC? flat 0.3% fee
Swap $10m sUSD for $10m sBTC? flat 0.3% fee
swap $100m sUSD for $100m sBTC? Well, there isn't that many synths in Curve, yet but you get the point. The only limit is the pool depth
— Andre Cronje (@AndreCronjeTech) January 15, 2021
So Curve is awesome for swaps between similar assets, right? The fact that they trade very close to each other is a key part about how Curve works, using it's custom swap invariant function.
That's step 1
Step 2 is that Synthetix is awesome for creating "synthetic assets" (aka synths) which are assets that trade like other assets, that are backed by another, entirely different asset. Basically, a plastic banana that I can buy and sell like a real banana.
Synthetix has a feature that lets you swap between any two synths with zero slippage and a flat fee. That's because it is simply converting the sythentic asset into another synthetic asset, the backing for the synth doesn't change it just uses a different price oracle now.
This is important. Absolutely no slippage, at any size
Swap $1m sUSD for $1m sBTC? flat 0.3% fee
Swap $10m sUSD for $10m sBTC? flat 0.3% fee
swap $100m sUSD for $100m sBTC? Well, there isn't that many synths in Curve, yet but you get the point. The only limit is the pool depth
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?