| > If I'm understanding what he writes correctly, it's somewhat similar to a "1 OR 4-of-7" multisig concept. I can’t see any difference between the 4 of 7 countersigners under “social sharing” and the 4 of 7 countersigners in an Electrum cosigner arrangement. In both cases the countersigners are user selectable and can collude to steal your funds. You must place high amounts of trust in the countersigners in both cases, which means it isn’t really going to scale without credible financial institutions becoming involved there. At a certain point, both protocols evolve into a more egalitarian form of banking, where the “bank” itself is distributed across trusted countersigners. There is really no practical difference between Electrum’s cosigner model and “social sharing” here. If the entire point of countersigners is to protect stored value against theft, 1 OR N-of-M is purely a liability. It is only a UX upgrade when small amounts of funds are at risk, in which case you could elect to do a 1-of-2 cosigner multisig, anyway. > Also, I'm not sure why you're calling it the "Electrum cosigner" model. I thought multisig was a feature of the Bitcoin protocol, and not of the Electrum client? Electrum has shipped this feature since c. 2013, and the author of Electrum deserves recognition for pioneering the field. Granted it’s not surprising to see the prior art — particularly directly competitive, free and open source prior art — going uncited in this context. This type of shameless self-promotion is rampant in the modern cryptocurrency space, and it tends to leave the general public ignorant of legitimate “off-the-shelf” alternatives. It’s analogous to scaremongering against medical cannabis while backhandedly championing an in-house synthetic THC product. Unfortunately the majority of participants in this space are far too blinded by greed to care. |