Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin cold-wallet attack spreads to 4,500 addresses as losses near $89M

coindesk.com

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: Bitcoin cold-wallet attack spreads to 4,500 addresses as losses near $89M

#11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better now than later. It would have been even better a decade ago, but here we are.

Will this just trigger a crypto arms race? Bigger and tougher proof of work?

I am always hopeful that something like this might kill cryptocurrency (although I don't believe it will) - if a critical mass lose confidence in it, the network effect would collapse and people might stop wasting terawatt-hours of power on NFTs and exit scams.

Re: Bitcoin cold-wallet attack spreads to 4,500 addresses as losses near $89M

#12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will this just trigger a crypto arms race? Bigger and tougher proof of work?

I am always hopeful that something like this might kill cryptocurrency (although I don't believe it will) - if a critical mass lose confidence in it, the network effect would collapse and people might stop wasting terawatt-hours of power on NFTs and exit scams.

why do you care so much about that? NFTs are basically dead already and crypto is still somewhat niche

like, why does it even matter? I doubt the energy usage is anywhere near AI workloads running today

Re: Bitcoin cold-wallet attack spreads to 4,500 addresses as losses near $89M

#13
post #4

the thief appears sloppy in how they stole the coins. multiple waves, linking outputs together etc.

Yep, also greedy. If he only emptied a few large wallets and sent them to different addresses each also not all at the same time the vulnerability may not have been discovered so quickly.

Most would have blamed the card holder as was seen in the initial few posts that showed up on reddit.

Re: Bitcoin cold-wallet attack spreads to 4,500 addresses as losses near $89M

#16
post #14

Who would ever trust the built-in seed generation of a wallet? Diceware, write them down, then enter them into the wallet.

Because it's a hardware wallet. Usually these are designed to provide security by generating their own private keys and never letting the private key leave the hardware wallet. If you input the private key, you don't have the same security level.

Re: Bitcoin cold-wallet attack spreads to 4,500 addresses as losses near $89M

#17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better now than later. It would have been even better a decade ago, but here we are.

Will this just trigger a crypto arms race? Bigger and tougher proof of work?

This has nothing to do with proof of work

Re: Bitcoin cold-wallet attack spreads to 4,500 addresses as losses near $89M

#18
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am always hopeful that something like this might kill cryptocurrency (although I don't believe it will) - if a critical mass lose confidence in it, the network effect would collapse and people might stop wasting terawatt-hours of power on NFTs and exit scams.

why do you care so much about that? NFTs are basically dead already and crypto is still somewhat niche like, why does it even matter? I doubt the energy usage is anywhere near AI workloads running today

Setting aside any utility it might have, crypto has lots of negative externalities besides energy usage. The event under discussion, for example.

Re: Bitcoin cold-wallet attack spreads to 4,500 addresses as losses near $89M

#19
post #16
post #14

Who would ever trust the built-in seed generation of a wallet? Diceware, write them down, then enter them into the wallet.

Because it's a hardware wallet. Usually these are designed to provide security by generating their own private keys and never letting the private key leave the hardware wallet. If you input the private key, you don't have the same security level.

Yes, a different security level - in this case, possibly a better one!

Re: Bitcoin cold-wallet attack spreads to 4,500 addresses as losses near $89M

#20
post #19
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's a hardware wallet. Usually these are designed to provide security by generating their own private keys and never letting the private key leave the hardware wallet. If you input the private key, you don't have the same security level.

Yes, a different security level - in this case, possibly a better one!

Only in this case, where your hardware wallet is severely compromised. But if you believe your hardware wallet is compromised, why are you using it?
Post reply on HN