Nick Szabo  🔑

If the holders of M are under legal contract, even if only one of them, wouldn’t that protect you enough? Yes they could steal your funds, but they could be disbarred and sued. Obviously talking if they are an established entity which can’t exit scam

Works in some and maybe most circumstances, but t's more generally robust if, like Bitcoin itself, it doesn't depend on legal action to be secure.

That’s the trade off, then you are just plainly not trusting your family members to collide and rob you. Thank G-d, I think that’s the system I’m comfortable with. But good to know that someone could devise other alternatives

Probably better to keep a good fraction of the shares oneself, or between known trustworthy family members or good friends, just store them different places far enough apart. Usually OK even good to make it inconvenient yet reliable to reconstruct.

but in this case @francispouliot_ is right about on an infinite timeline all keys are lost. Because one will need a small amount of bitcoin for everyday transactions that they can't be bothered with all the multisig security. So if they die unexpectedly that small amt is lost.

@thebitcoinrabbi or did I just make the same mistake twice in a row? (when I said cheers I meant it ;) )

The statement “on an infinite timeline...” followed by anything is pretty meaningless

true. but what if someone like Trace Mayer dies unexpectedly without the ability to pass on his coins? in a hyperbitcoin world that's a big supply shock do we just make bitcoin more divisible by adding 9 zeros behind the decimal point?

Not really a supply shock if coins already weren’t moving...halvening is a supply shock bc it’s assumed a portion of block reward is continuously being sold to cover overhead/operating costs

ya i get what you mean, but it's kind of the same. people assume that supply can be put into play at any time. But when they know it's really gone things get valued differently.