This is terrible fucking advice. 🤦♂️
One should NEVER introduce a single point of failure; lose one key & they're fucked. 🫠
There should always be at least one contingency key so users don't risk locking themselves out of their own funds. 💁♂️
Best multisig practice is:
1. X-of-Y
2. X < Y
3. X & Y are odd
4. X is a majority
Examples (and example use cases):
2-of-3 (single user grade; single contingency)
3-of-5 (small-medium business grade; double contingency)
5-of-7 (institutional grade; double contingency)
5-of-9 (institutional board voting; quadruple contingency)
7-of-9 (institutional high security; double contingency)
7-of-11 (institutional high security; quadruple contingency)
9-of-11 (nation-state security; double contingency)
All of these introduce increased security without introducing single points of failure that could risk fund lockup from lost keys. 👀
Be a good sherpa. 🤙
exist270
npub1dj…mycku
2026-08-04 16:06:15 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…p7rw
Author Public Key
npub1dja4taqf6kxwajv3a6cmf2s80yc705rc6eya5enp9ppfhdnmdyxq6myckuPublished at
2026-08-04 16:06:15 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "f31f671d2651f26ccd824ffbeca9b3546e9bc3ea3ad504990314f867dfd47a1e",
"pubkey": "6cbb55f409d58ceec991eeb1b4aa077931e7d078d649da666128429bb67b690c",
"created_at": 1785859575,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1951b7221f95d48b24b71ca70703f653506a04f02f65eae068273d333053efc6",
"",
"root"
],
[
"p",
"6140478c9ae12f1d0b540e7c57806649327a91b040b07f7ba3dedc357cab0da5"
],
[
"client",
"Primal Web"
]
],
"content": "This is terrible fucking advice. 🤦♂️\n\nOne should NEVER introduce a single point of failure; lose one key \u0026 they're fucked. 🫠\n\nThere should always be at least one contingency key so users don't risk locking themselves out of their own funds. 💁♂️\n\nBest multisig practice is:\n\n1. X-of-Y\n2. X \u003c Y\n3. X \u0026 Y are odd\n4. X is a majority\n\nExamples (and example use cases):\n\n2-of-3 (single user grade; single contingency)\n3-of-5 (small-medium business grade; double contingency)\n5-of-7 (institutional grade; double contingency)\n5-of-9 (institutional board voting; quadruple contingency)\n7-of-9 (institutional high security; double contingency)\n7-of-11 (institutional high security; quadruple contingency)\n9-of-11 (nation-state security; double contingency)\n\nAll of these introduce increased security without introducing single points of failure that could risk fund lockup from lost keys. 👀\n\nBe a good sherpa. 🤙",
"sig": "52886b78a2af8a235c7efab2757c5f8735c3a006b0726aba254a21e0d52aec32b0d66897e7035a5bcf439f6784ab16aa0ae95607efd5b3d784b74e78c3841ba0"
}