Not your keys, not your wallet philosophy fuels dangerous vulnerabilities in cryptocurrency. Cory Doctorow’s analysis highlights how physical attacks, or 'wrench attacks,' threaten users who store crypto offline. Unlike banks, crypto relies on public ledgers that immortalize transactions, making reidentification attacks easier over time. Even with robust encryption, a stolen private key can lead to irreversible theft. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) emphasizes that privacy tools alone can’t counteract state-backed violence, but crypto’s design amplifies physical risks. A $1m Bitcoin stash, for instance, could justify kidnapping, torture, or assassination to steal keys. This isn’t just a technical flaw—it’s a human safety crisis.

Doctorow critiques the anti-state crypto ethos that romanticizes self-custody. Smart contracts, touted as decentralized solutions, are vulnerable to ambiguity and human intervention. Worse, crypto’s complexity forces users to rely on unregulated platforms like Coinbase, which often lack the security of traditional banks. Public ledgers, while foundational to blockchain, create a paradox: immutability ensures traceability, undermining anonymity. A reidentification attack could link an anonymous wallet to a real person, exposing them to targeted violence. The EFF’s decades-long advocacy for encryption as a tool for civil liberties now clashes with crypto’s physical dangers. Unlike cyberattacks, wrench attacks require no technical skill—just a weapon and opportunity.

The real failure lies in crypto’s promise of financial sovereignty. By rejecting state-regulated systems, it replaces banks with platforms that prioritize profit over safety. Unlike banks, these services aren’t insured or legally accountable. When breaches occur, victims have no recourse. Doctorow concludes that cryptocurrency’s physical risks aren’t hypothetical—they’re already happening. Attacks on crypto holders are growing bolder, with documented cases of violence. The lesson is clear: true security requires balancing technical tools with legal and social protections. Crypto’s rejection of regulation may offer mathematical precision, but it ignores the messy reality of human conflict.