The Ledger Nano S is one of the most common hardware wallet solutions on the market today. For those looking for ease of use, a multi-coin wallet, and a secure storage solution - it has been established as the Mercedes of cryptocurrency wallets. However, the service has experienced a service outage which has lead some users to debate just how much centralization is acceptable when it comes to a storage solution. Via their twitter, " Following a network outage in our datacenter, the Ledger Manager features are currently unavailable (including: firmware update, application installation). We're in contact with our provider to get the situation solved. We appreciate your patience & will keep you posted " - @LedgerHQ
To the fair - the access to funds on the wallet as well as most day to day functions have not been affected. The only thing which the Ledger Manager app controls is installing and deleting apps as well as firmware updates. Given that there are many new users setting up devices bought before the most recent update (which gives them access to greater security as well as the ability to have more apps) which need to get up to date. But this bottleneck still reminds one of the centralized aspects of relying on a service like Ledger. Many crypto-maximalists use cryptocurrencies to get away from authoritarian institutions like banks which control when you can access your funds and when - you are at their mercy on bank holidays, outages, etc.
But is this really the same? According to the Ledger website, the wallet itself uses the BIP44 protocol which is supported by many other wallets. So as long as you have your secure recovery phrase, you could in theory use the same wallet and funds - whether you have Bitcoin, Litcoin, Ethereum or any of the other coins - without losing anything. The only thing you are losing by moving away from the proprietary wallet is the user interface, which allows you to send coins easily with a handful of apps, as well as the added security of the wallet itself, which never exposes your private keys. So while the loss of those services may be an annoyance to users, the alternative is at least as secure as what would already have been there. The features provided by the Ledger software and hardware are an added mixture of convenience and security. Even then, as it is open source it is possible for people to create their own apps as well as firmware to use on the devices - if for some reason the company closed its doors. So while there is an element of centralization, it is simply as a second-layer atop the secure elements of the protocol involved. But the nature of the technology means that the community could support their own software and interfaces if the need ever arose. The only cost would be the confusion, as well as any associated opportunity costs.
The majority of the product remains decentralized yet secure and easy to use. Especially given that the problem was swiftly resolved. Decentralization comes on a spectrum. All projects have points of failure. The philosophy of cryptocurrency is minimizing those risks as much as possible, all maintained on an immutable ledger which lives on an organic network of nodes and clients without the need for central servers, institutions, or government entities. Different projects will all lie of varying points along the spectrum, and eachwill have their advantages and disadvantages. Whether it's your Monero or your Ripple, everything has a time and place. Decentralization is the goal, but not a limitation. Bitcoin, after all, needs to be usable if it's ever to truly become digital cash. It helps to have devices like Ledger, or even any of the less secure mobile wallets to add that ease of use to enable widespread adoption.
The skepticism and discussion instills hope that people are still skeptical of products like these, rather than blindly purchasing them and hoping that things will always be available. When it comes to your own assets - always to your own research. It's your money, after all. What are your thoughts? Share them below.
