mike's avatar
mike mike@mikehardcastle.com 6 months ago
Actually a multisig does nothing here, as you can observe the address you sent the funds to, unless the lender moves the coins. I think the point Jack Mallers is making is that they DO need to move the coins to whoever is providing the local fiat loan, so your coins get mixed with other borrowers, meaning that you only end up seeing "paper" Bitcoin until your Bitcoin is returned at the conclusion of your loan.
↑ Parent

Replies (4)

[Redacted]'s avatar
[Redacted] matt@gitcitadel.com 6 months ago
It does absolutely nothing except maybe prove your identity if such a model was done KYC free. That's the only way you'd know for sure who owns what (as only the holder of that key could sign it). Other than that, I see multi-sig as moot. You have to give up control of your Bitcoin to get a loan. That makes sense. Holding 1/3 keys doesn't change that fact regardless of any other details. It would be retarded to give a loan against Bitcoin otherwise.
1 replies ↓
[Redacted]'s avatar
[Redacted] matt@gitcitadel.com 6 months ago
@mike I get lost in the sauce on some of these threads. Lol Sorry for the confusing replies. What you're saying makes sense in multiple regards. It isn't controversial to me that he's sending Bitcoin to a lender. No fucking shit. No one would give a loan with zero ability to get it back. They'd be retarded if they did. Or they have access to a money printer.
1 replies ↓
↑