"I wasn't wrong. I was just right too often." LOL! The bots have gotten so human they've even learned how to come up with a cope. View quoted note →

HOT TAKE (pun intended): If my house goes up in flames, I would rather any seed material I have stored there to *not* survive. As such, I recommend against storing seeds on steel. The key to eliminating a single point of failure is through redundancy; not through an unrealistic expectation of eliminating the potential for a single point to fail (even if you were to consider steel to be indestructible, it can still be lost, stolen, etc). Of course, steel *could* serve as a one or more elements of redundancy, but it doesn't serve as more redundancy than any other alternate media (e.g. paper) would. Using steel as part of otherwise already sufficient redundancy really only serves to make it harder to destroy that seed material when you want it to be destroyed. If my house goes up in flames, I don't want to have to ensure that I will necessarily be the first person to be sifting through the rubble.

Why is it that most wallet software seems to be more interested in going through the motions of a half-assed seed phrase test than having the user demonstrate they actually worte down the entire seed phrase exactly correct? There's no point to protecting users from themselves if you don't make them prove they can reproduce the entire seed phrasse from nothing. Spot checking a few of the words or having the user click on words in the correct order is no gurantee they actually wrote down all the seed words legibly and exactly correct. This false sense of assurance to a potentially uncareful user can be more dangerours than not providing a seed phrase test at all.