11–20 of 297 posts
Even the real version is the app is a software wallet right? If you have almost 500k in BTC and do not have it on a hardware wallet and use their official software for it, I have to say it's at least partially on you if you lose it.
Even the real version is the app is a software wallet right? If you have almost 500k in BTC and do not have it on a hardware wallet and use their official software for it, I have to say it's at least partially on you if you lose it.
Bitcoin "wallet" is just a pair of public and private keys. Honest question - what is the difference between a "hardware wallet" and a thumbdrive with the keys on it, except for the price tag?
When you plug a thumbdrive with keys on it into a computer the computer can just take the keys.
It's the same as the difference between a YubiKey and a thumbdrive with GPG keys on it.
That is such a poor attitude. Instead maybe hope that canonical may fix the lax vetting and security of their store, but to care directly about their reputation and not the user who was scammed due to their weak practices goes hand in hand with everything else I’ve seen from snap.
This is scary and even a hardware wallet might not help. When I create a transaction with Electrum on my computer, I use a hardware wallet to sign the transaction. When I sign the transaction, the hardware wallet shows the amounts, and the output addresses. But if my copy of Electrum was backdoored and smart about what it did, it could use an output address for the remaining amount that went to another wallet. And si…
The screen is tiny, and protocol devs don't usually put a lot of thought into making stuff easily human readable. Ideally a transaction can be fully understood and verified from the hardware wallet but we still have a ways to go.
Sounds like assurances made by UX and Marketing, which engineering might've been able to tell them they can't make.
If it ends up costing them $490K plus legal fees, that's still a relatively inexpensive way to learn this lesson.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly you didn't RTFA. This mistake was on Canonical / is due to a lack of vetting in the Ubuntu app store.
I don't know jack about crypto but surely we shouldn't expect a distro provider to be vetting financial instruments?
[flagged]
‘ I’m writing this in the hope Canonical will fix its processes so reputation-damaging events like this don’t keep happening.’ That is such a poor attitude. Instead maybe hope that canonical may fix the lax vetting and security of their store, but to care directly about their reputation and not the user who was scammed due to their weak practices goes hand in hand with everything else I’ve seen from snap.