Thread

Zero-JS Hypermedia Browser

Relays: 5
Replies: 9
Generated: 00:27:14
nostr:nprofile1qqs0w2xeumnsfq6cuuynpaw2vjcfwacdnzwvmp59flnp3mdfez3czpsprpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumr0wpczuum0vd5kzmp0ksxxx2 recently posted on X about the danger of "store and forget" for Bitcoin over decades. Unfortunately he's right. Originally I stored my raw private keys and UTXOs (on paper, care taken) figuring that was standard. Then bitcoin core stopped supporting them! Other wallets tend only to support them for sweeping, and I wonder how long. If I were storing funds today I would use BIP39. BIP93 is cool and more general, but not widely supported, and I don't know what support will look like in a decade.
2025-11-16 20:53:12 from 1 relay(s) 6 replies ↓
Login to reply

Replies (9)

Yeah, I think Bitcoin HODL'ing is something you'll have to maintain a somewhat active role in. As technology changes, be willing to move or adapt the setup. There is a discipline that deals with this kind of stuff for archival of data or even physical stuff. So, probably lots of lessons that could be learned by looking at some of the thinking from that discipline.
2025-11-16 22:19:38 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent Reply
I think there is a broader, more general point to be made here: accepting your own responsibility for preserving some version of software (and hardware) necessary to use your private keys is just as prudent as accepting your own responsibility for preserving your private keys.
2025-11-16 23:39:20 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent Reply
Yes. Though you have to *start* with BIP39: you can't take a secret and ask "give me this as BIP39". You can with BIP93. The (multiple!) word lists are sub-optimal, the hashing is awkward and the checksum is so weak it makes me sad. But I ❤️ the 12 words. It's magic UX, which makes my primate brain happy.
2025-11-18 21:11:15 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent Reply