[lmm]

> And you need the private keys to conduct business so obvi they can exit the HSM

While I agree with you in general, this is false; the whole point is that the HSM can sign transactions using the keys inside it but will never expose them to outside.

[lanstin]

Touché on the use, but you propose a non transferable wallet? Or will it replicate to other HSMs with certain credentials? Will the car dealership owner people them replicated cross availability zones or to diverse geolocations? And will the HSM replicate the keys to a hacked HSM if I get the signing keys from an employee of the HSM with a promise of 10% of the winnings?

[lmm]

I'm not proposing anything, and I think these are hard problems. Potentially there are solutions to some of the things you say, but ultimately it's hard to escape the choice between trusting some entity and being able to lose your keys.

[lanstin]

My point is that for large important financial amounts, irrevocable transactions are terrible UX.

For instance, my retirement now such as it is, remains pretty safe. I would have to read some financial meme (in the old sense of reproductive ideas) online and go thru a number of complex paper work steps to remove it from the boring fiat place it is now and send it to a much riskier place. The massive too big to fail institution could fail and not have 401ks bailed out, or society could collapse.

If it were some digital wallet, I could loose it just by signing something unrelated to “take all my money” with my private key and boom my wife and my self and my kids and other dependents are SOL.

Given that I have to trust society not to fail anyways to enjoy “stored value” where all value is embodied in and protected by society, i can’t find a way in which the irrevocable transactions benefit me more than the risk of my own laxness and occasional errors endangers the well being of my loved ones.