Satoshi, and VB (gulp) are wrong.
So, my frend overwrote a new passwords keeper text file with an old file, and lost 3 months of new passwords (and some recovery phrases, yes, she/he/it was lazy) stored there — losing such would have been no big deal with custodial passwords, but these were for her “metamask” and couple of other new Chrome extension wallets. This is not the first time, the first times being many moons ago: “oh (!) DAO coins are worth only few dollars, she/he/it/me will get to that…”.
Thus: The private-key method which is part foundational to the decentralized immutable irrevocable truth technology is also its biggest barrier to mass adoption — by the general public AND by the regular businesses, AND institutionals* — where the people AND processes there (*with long habits of dependence on fault insurance and the expectant of similar insurance on the possible losses of billions in value in bitcoins for the corporate officers emulating Michael Saylor, and what if a concussion injury happens at work with loss of passwords?!) can-not, will not, want not, think not, wish-to-learn not, don’t-give-me-this-cross-to-bear responsibility, and any other nots… handle, manage, safe-keep, etc. the keys to the kingdom…These private key handling “habit” will not change, ever. The tasks and cost of self-sovereignty are too high for the ~99%, especially when it can be custodied then insured and written off as a cost of doing business. It is a function too hazardous and a hardship to ask…of the staff or officers. ;) Then, another question is — what custodial service could an institution entrust with keys to its billions in bitcoin, as it cannot be insured.
Thus: The decentralized tribe MUST acquiesce and accept the custodial services for the general public…even if VB said that (well, it was a while back, so forgive him) — “wish…all centralized exchanges to burn in hell” (paraphrased). Nope. The tribe needs to lovingly adopt and embrace custodial private-key admins and services…
Which leads to another paradox: Is bitcoin to be a store of value (SoV) AND a daily use transactional currency unit? No. Satoshi is wrong. It can only be an SoV, and once in, to not move nor spent on transactions(!), it cannot/must not be spent after all the trouble to get it (convert fiat into bitcoin, then the “arduous” process to secure it (including taking it out once in a while to polish, admire it, show it off, and to make sure it's still live and not dead), and to be buried — albeit, the space needs to come up with ways for it to be collateralized/used to earn yields but at absolute minimal risk of liquidation.
Thus: Bitcoin must increase in price and have the expectation of outpacing yields (and by appreciation mainly ATM, as its still in the growth phase) of the other similar liquid assets in the fiat or centralized world. If bitcoin does not win this perception, it will then do the inverse and the price will tend to zero.
This SoV feature will draw the corporate officers to create debt obligations at some 8% annual costs to convert their fiat assets and money into the bitcoin SoV as safe haven. These officers following in the steps of Michael Saylor would not be buying bitcoin for SoV only, they would be buying for the SoV + expected value appreciation which can outpace at least the cost of money. They also would need that to justify that the “better” use of the corporate assets is to invest in the bitcoin asset, i.e. over and above other corp. assets.
Thus, bitcoin’s only job paradoxically is to be “a static store of value which appreciates faster than the general economy by just sitting there and doing nothing, providing no actual benefit to anyone”…and to have (some) of the bitcoins on custodial exchanges and insured for the average frend old private key habits.
