Hey folks! Loving this conversation so far.

My position on this is rather similar the comment here. Using any password manager is better than no password manager.

I would like to zoom out and look at this from a different angle for a moment.

What if instead of security being looked at specifically from the individual, we start to look at our interdependent security.

Lets start from the assumption that folks are not and never will be security experts. Lets not assume password best practice.

• Is it possible for an organisation to achieve reasonable security through #interdependent process
• Is it possible for an individual to achieve reasonable security through #interdependent process

In our 2/6 multisig wallet two compromises need to be made for someone outside the group to control the wallet.

In our 2/6 multisig wallet 5 wallets need to be lost for the funds to be locked in place.

Based on these two we can reasonably state: as you increase the number of signatories you increase the diffculty of outside control of the wallet. On the other hand fewer wallets need to be lost for funds to be locked in place.

As you increase the number of signatories you increase the risk s associated to a break down in consensus/group cohesion.

Many of us will have been part of relationships or projects which have gone through a break down in social relations at some point...

As part of this we could think about thinking through what would happen in the case of social breakdown. In commerce outside of state boundaries, such as commerical ships going through international boundaries, parties involved in some type of trade would elect arbitrators and then also the 'rule of law' they would follow...

How might #interdependent security increase with the election of arbitrators?

Ok, so - to zoom back in. I think any password manager is better than no password manger.

I think what we can offer this space actually are considerations and strategies / tools to tinker with the other aspects of 'security'....