I can see how multi-sig could increase security risks. If wallets where given out to 5 people in a 4-of-5 fashion you would have to trust 4-of-5 people. With this style of wallet, you only have to trust 1-of-1 person. Jesse is on TV taking responsibility. I trust him. I want to put my trust into his 1-of-1 wallet. This was probably what he was commenting on.
4-of-5 -> 2 people don't want to send, they quit. Coins are frozen.
4-of-5 -> 2 people lose wallets -> Coins are lost for ever.
Any sort of wallet structure is going to have different risks associated with it. You have to look at the intended use for the BTC.
I'm sure he's looking at creating a multi-sig wallet system where each store owner has private keys and stores them in banks in different countries. Maybe this is next years plan... once there is a need to store millions of $ worth of BTC and there are 5 stores around the world.
Multi-sig only effects offline security use of the keys. Once any type of wallet touches the internet, it's a hot wallet and will have way more legitimate security risks associated with it.
That was my very first LIVE interview. I will get better at choosing words.
@fartbags is correct. When I said security flaws, I should have used the term "social interaction flaws". Due to the scale of this idea, multi-sig would have been overkill. The costs and overhead to run a multi-sig system would have been a nightmare.
Third Key Solutions and Andreas M. Antonopoulos show the costs associated with running a multi-sig wallet system:
https://www.thirdkey.solutions/pricing/As you can see, USD $5,000+ is quite expensive.
The 1-of-1 solution I have used is secure. The only security risk associated would be someone (or The Canadian Government) robbing the bank... no one is going to be robbing the bank.
Once again you have to look at the size of this project. This is a small scale project that will work securely and efficiently with a 1-of-1 wallet.
I get why Jesse didn't want to do multi-sig as it added another layer that touched the internet. Why not provide both ? Provide the "current way" and a "multi-sig option" and let people decide what they feel best with. In fact, the multi-sig could come in the four - of - five crypto weed coins dev's holding the keys. This way the dev's who have been in this space are fairly trusted. Thoughts ?
Yes, Once there are more #420AJF store located around the world a multi-sig address might be the best choice.
I would be fine with each store owner having a 1-of-1 wallet. Due to the diverse nature of cities, I see the people living in those areas knowing what to do best.
If a multi-sig address with multiple respected people would help raise funds then it's a good idea.
)
.