Yup, there was a bug that allowed the attacker to create an unlimited number of Bitcoin, it was fixed, but there seems to be this myth that SN provided complete bug free working code from the outset.
Where can I read more about this? Super interesting.
A hardware wallet is a physical device that stores some private keys in a tamper-proof secure element. Those private keys can be regenerated from a recovery phrase[1] which acts as a seed to regenerate the keys in a deterministic way. The hardware device is typically itself secured by means of a pin. Without the pin, the device can’t be unlocked so can’t be used, too many incorrect pin attempts will brick the device.…
I wonder, couldn't a such "wallet" be built on top of secure element (i.e on iOS/android)? Carrying around an additional device just for "wallet" features is very inconvenient.
Presumably yes, although some people prefer having a special-purpose device even if it is an extra thing to carry around. It does depend on your threat model I guess.
> if the experts can’t secure their accounts, what hope does anyone else have? This is my opinion of the entire software industry. Chrome exploits, iPhone hacks, etc. These are nearly trillion dollar companies. If they can't do it then nobody can. Something is fundamentally broken.
Something is fundamentally broken. "We can write perfect software to prevent all attacks" is fundamentally broken, because we have empirically proven that we can't. (The previous model, "we can trust people", is even more broken. But maybe it's the same breakage? "If this packet that came over the internet passes all of our filters of known bad things, then we should go ahead and process it.") People have touted capa…
The answer is security through isolation. See: https://qubes-os.org. My daily driver for years.
The hacker will have a rough time converting these to USD without exposing himself. If they’re in Russia they probably don’t need to care, but there’s a reasonable chance they live in a country that the FBI can reach. On the other hand, no one can do anything until the coins are moved or more information is uncovered. What a nightmare to lose $3.6m overnight.
Just use Defi - take a loan from a "smart" script with a collateral of tainted bittokens, then cash out loaned tokens, and never repay the loan. Isn't Finance 2.0 amazing? :)
Not gonna work. Your loaned tokens are traceable back to your tainted bitcoins (in this case wrapped btc on ethereum).
Context now that the editorialised title has changed, this is a core Bitcoin developer. These things happen every day, but happening to a core developer (if confirmed!) who has a deep understanding of the systems and security indicates just how fragile crypto can be (in my opinion)
Nice straw-man argument. Eventually, you will understand that bitcoin is not crypto. There's bitcoin and there's everything else. Everything else is a scam. Bitcoin is the hardest money ever.
Please, stop doing that. You won't get anywhere by saying all other major projects that occupy the same space as Bitcoin are scams. You're not helping bitcoin by doing that. You're not convincing anyone that bitcoin isn't crypto; it's the first crypto, and frankly it's been superseded by other FOSS projects like Monero and Ethereum in various places. Either all of crypto is a scam, or we have to take things on a case-by-case basis. By using this Bitcoin-only logic, you're just turning more people over to the former position. Many of the best innovators in the scene have been working on anything but Bitcoin for a long time.
I always have JavaScript disabled by default (uMatrix policy), but (0) there's many other attack vectors, to my layman understanding, and (1) at any rate that one's a Mastodon instance and those are blank pages without JS. I'm electing to add new URL regexps to my uBlock filters, to reduce the risk of accidentally clicking a link similar to this. I don't think I want to visit any web domain that caters to people who…
Are you’re (0) and (1) supposed to be citations? If so I’m interested and you forgot to add them.
I think he is numbering his bullet points from zero.
I still think the reason Satoshi vanished is that he lost his private key and couldn't handle the embarrassment.
Assuming you're right and Satoshi did lose their private key, one thing I find implausible is assuming embarrassment. Satoshi was, for what we know, a pseudonym that has held really well (we still don't know their real name).
Personally, I'm embarrassed when somebody can acurately pin a weakness to my character that I feel vulnerable about. For example: Satoshi could have been playing a persona that they aren't in real life, similar to how an actor plays a role in a movie. In that case, if e.g. someone criticizes a personality trait of the movie role, the actor won't personally feel embarrassed since the critique doesn't fall back to their own personality. I believe the same logic is transferable to the case of Satoshi, where even if they lost the key, they wouldn't truly have to feel embarrassed consider that they've acted the online personality from the get go.
> So you’re saying that to use crypto properly, I have to secure a physical object that grants irrevocable ownership of my wealth? That sounds bad. Yeah, that's how most things work in the physical world. If you want to secure a widget, then you need to "secure a physical object that grants irrevocable ownership" of it. Cryptocurrencies improve on this slightly by allowing you set up multisignature schemes, so you ca…
Can you go into more detail about how multisig helps? I assume one of the signatures is my hardware wallet. Who holds the other signature? Do they have SIPC insurance?
There is no insurance for cryptocurrency. You are your own bank, with all that entails.
If you want to do multi-signature, you determine where your keys go and who holds them. It's up to you to secure your finances.