Bitcointalk username: internetional
First impressionMixin Safe is positioned as a solution for decentralized bitcoin storage. In my view, this positioning is unlikely to attract anyone. All Bitcoin UTXOs are already stored in a decentralized manner: on many thousands of computers worldwide. Hence, the phrase "decentralized bitcoin custody solutions" doesn't capture any attention. Bitcoin, at first glance, doesn't appear to have a problem necessitating such solutions. Everything is already resolved.
Let’s figure it outHowever, it's intriguing to understand the developers' intentions and the problem they aimed to address. Reading the description, it appears that they are likely referring to a storage approach that eliminates a single point of failure. When only one person possesses the key to the assets, any mishap involving that person would render the bitcoins inaccessible. Mixin Safe proposes a storage method in which multiple individuals possess the keys, preventing any one of them from unilaterally spending the bitcoins.
In essence, the idea is not novel. It appears that Mixin Safe is yet another program designed to manage bitcoins using M-of-N multi-signature addresses. Similar to, for instance, the Nunchuk wallet.
Is it really just a multisig wallet?In order to check whether Mixin Safe is truly a conventional application for multi-signature addresses, I followed the instructions on the website, created a safe, granted access to two of my alter egos, deposited funds into the safe, and withdrew coins from it. The outcome revealed that Mixin Safe generates a somewhat unconventional M-of-N multi-signature address.
Typically, in addresses of this type, all signatures hold equal weight. It's immaterial whose signatures are included and whose are not. Once M signatures are accumulated, the transaction is transmitted to the network and acknowledged as valid.
In Mixin Safe, users are categorized into two types: "owner" and "members." The owner's signature on the transaction is mandatory. Regardless of the number of signatures added by members, the transaction remains invalid until the owner's signature is present.
Indeed, this arrangement seems to deviate from decentralization. The ownership structure is conspicuously centralized, with the "owner" occupying a central role and being singular in nature. In the event of any mishap befalling the owner, the other signature holders would be rendered incapable of managing the bitcoins.
Why then is it necessary?The developers of Mixin Safe assert that this approach could prove beneficial for institutional bitcoin holders. Under this storage scheme, no individual within the organization would have the ability to unilaterally seize or misuse the bitcoins.
Indeed, this logic holds merit. Requiring a predetermined number of "members" signatures for any bitcoin transaction ensures that the "owner" can't execute a financial operation without obtaining the necessary approval from a sufficient number of “members”. This aligns with a conventional corporate approach to asset management.
But I see two more use cases for this scheme.
Firstly, Mixin Safe can be used to teach children about responsibility. I will illustrate this through a comparison of the Mixin Safe principle with the Nunchuk principle.
In Nunchuk, the setup would be as follows:
- I give the child a key to a multi-signature address in the wallet, keep the second key for myself, and give the third key to my wife.
- Meanwhile, I establish a 2-of-3 rule, meaning the child can manage the funds in the wallet only with the consent of either mom or dad.
- The child doesn't feel like the owner of the money; they understand that mom and dad can at any time withdraw all the money from the wallet using their two signatures.
In Mixin Safe, the situation is indeed different.
- When I give money to a child, the child becomes the "owner," while the parents become "members."
- The child still requires the consent of one of the parents for any financial transaction, but now the parents also need the child's approval.
- If the child loses their key, parents won't be able to control the funds using only their two keys. With this understanding, the child will take much more responsible care of the key.
Secondly, Mixin Safe could indeed be used to implement the principle of citizenship comprehensively. It would be interesting if taxes were collected using Mixin Safe wallets. The state becomes the "owner," while the family (husband and wife with shared property) are the "members." Citizens are required to pay taxes, and so we comply. Once the money is transferred to Mixin Safe, it becomes the state's property, and we lose the ability to withdraw it. However, states are obligated to spend on their citizens, not on warfare or terrorism. Each citizen can opt to withhold their signature from expenditures they deem inappropriate. This concept would truly embody citizenship, with citizens holding real responsibility for the actions of their states.
To achieve this, it would indeed require the Recovery feature to not function, similar to its current state of non-functionality. As initially designed by the developers, if the "owner" key is lost, access to the funds can be regained using the "members" keys, and if the members' keys are lost, the "owner" key would be used for recovery. Currently, when attempting to initiate the recovery procedure, an error message is displayed.
If this error is fixed and "members" can access assets bypassing the "owner," and the "owner" can bypass the "members," then it will be unclear to me why all of this is needed. In my opinion, Mixin Safe would then be merely an unnecessary complication of the typical multi-signature M-of-N scheme. There would be no fundamentally new features in it.
It's doubtful that anyone would pay for the same solution that is freely available in existing multi-signature wallets.
OMG! Is there a cost for this?Yes, indeed. The website indicates that the usage fee amounts to $100. During the testing phase, we can try out Mixin Safe features for $2. I gave it a try, and it seemed much less convenient to me compared to the free Nunchuk.
- Firstly, when using a smartphone wallet, you actually need two applications instead of just one: Mixin Messenger and Mornin Key. Additionally, Mornin Key comes with a cost.
- Secondly, one smartphone won't suffice. You'll require an additional device with a web browser. The internal browser integrated into Mixin Messenger cannot be used to log into Mixin Safe. This is because the authorization process involves a QR code, which can only be scanned by a different device. (By the way, I attempted to photograph the QR code and then read it using the same device where it was initially displayed. This approach didn't work. After closing the browser displaying the QR code, I launched Mixin Messenger, read the QR code from the photo, returned to the browser, and found the QR code had already changed. This likely occurs every time the browser goes into the background. Authorization can only be achieved with an active browser.)
- Thirdly, the website used for primary interactions with Mixin Safe is inadequately designed and isn't optimized for all devices. For instance, on my Samsung J730, I am unable to tap the View button, essential for confirming a transaction. If a transaction status is “Proposing”, the button is simply not visible. And it’s impossible to scroll the page right: only up-down scrolling is allowed.
There are additional minor details that could potentially affect one's perception of Mixin Safe, but when compared to the previously mentioned issues, these are indeed minor concerns.
The only undeniable benefit I found in Mixin Safe is the fixed transaction fee: $1. This means that the fee for Mixin Safe could be viewed as purchasing insurance against potential increases in blockchain fees. I suppose I would be willing to pay for such an insurance policy. However, it's unclear how the developers intend to maintain this cost during mempool congestions. It's possible that transactions will be sent to the network with a fee not exceeding $1 and will take a long time to be confirmed.
RecommendationsOn the whole, I still haven't grasped the purpose behind all of this and what exactly merits payment. Hence, as a conclusion to my review, I would like to offer a few recommendations to the developers.
1. Make an effort to provide a clearer explanation of the specific problem that Mixin Safe is intended to address. It could be that its ideal application is indeed as insurance against rising transaction costs.
2. Ensure that Mixin Safe effectively tackles this problem. For instance, to achieve genuine decentralization, it could be worth considering the removal of "owner" privileges. Additionally, for the two use cases I mentioned earlier, it might be beneficial to eliminate the Recovery option.
3. Illustrate your unique selling points through examples, highlighting how you differentiate from free alternatives. While you already have a list of distinctions, it's crucial to make them more tangible and clear. For instance, you mention having a helpdesk, but the value of paying for support diminishes if customers need to wait for hours to receive assistance. If the helpdesk is intended as a competitive advantage, it should be made more responsive.
4. Work on refining and optimizing the user interface to ensure compatibility with various devices. Currently, using your wallet on certain devices is not merely inconvenient but at times even impossible.
Anyway, thank you for the opportunity to write a review. I found it very interesting to delve into Mixin Safe. I wish you all the best.