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)
Based on the other comments in this thread it looks like he didn't bother using a hardware wallet (which is literally something that's recommended on bitcoin.org[1]), and kept his wallet.dat on a server exposed to the internet. You're trying to paint a story of "well if a bitcoin core developer can't secure his coins, then who can!?!?", but in this case it looks like he was being an idiot. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
[1] https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet
edit: on twitter he denied that he kept his wallet file on a server
Is there a way I can get my crypto held my an institution with SIPC insurance, the way I hold stocks at a brokerage, so I can outsource this issue to someone else who is backed by a government guarantee? (I obviously don’t expect them to guarantee the value of the crypto, just that the broker doesn’t lose it).
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 can get redundancy in the event of a loss.
>Is there a way I can get my crypto held my an institution with SIPC insurance, the way I hold stocks at a brokerage, so I can outsource this issue to someone else who is backed by a government guarantee?
If you want government guarantees, crypto might not be right for you.
You can’t steal my house by obtaining the deed. You can’t steal my stock by obtaining the stock certificates. That’s not how it works. The vast majority of wealth in developed countries doesn’t rely on physical security to maintain ownership. We’ve collectively outsourced that function to the government and other institutions, so we don’t have to individually hire bodyguards to prevent criminals from taking possession of our homes and stealing our assets.
Most people only hold a relatively small amount of wealth in forms that can by physically stolen (eg. petty cash, electronics). This means that you only need to defend yourself against a $1000 crime (stealing your TV), which is a lot easier than defending against a $1M crime (stealing your house or 401k).
If crypto requires holding my wealth in a hardware wallet that can be stolen, that means I’m only going to be willing to invest the amount of wealth I would spend on a TV, not the kind of wealth I am going to allocate to stocks or bonds.
Granted, crypto has utility for people who can’t use the government-backed institutions, like criminals. And in some countries where the government will steal your money, it has broader appeal. I won’t argue with that.
You can also steal stocks. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/us-charges-ha...
> The vast majority of wealth in developed countries doesn’t rely on physical security to maintain ownership
Indeed, it relies on far sillier things like hoping that nobody spends $100 on a fake ID and pretends to be you.
When your crypto is stolen, the theft cannot be reversed, by design.
>When your crypto is stolen, the theft cannot be reversed, by design.
If someone sends you a phishing link, gets your info, logs into your online banking and sends all of your money overseas, that theft generally can't be reversed either. (You'll find that the CFPB recently updated their Reg E interpretation on this, but that interpretation isn't binding and directly contradicts decades of practice)
If you're a business and get hit by banking malware, you're similarly fucked.
If that is the case, then doesn't that destroy (at least) one of the basic principles of cryptocurrency that people constantly harp on?
The basic principle will be the same most of the time, you identify the thief and use legal measures to force them to return the funds.
There is zero chance that will happen for bitcoin.
You can have a rule that allows spending <$1k at known places, but anything over that has to have approval from 3/5 board members, or your manager etc. Any spending rule can be coded like this.
Brokerage account hacked, stocks sold and money wired away? Your chances of recovery are extremely slim. There's pretty much no recourse once that money has passed through a few hops.
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.
https://www.lloyds.com/about-lloyds/media-centre/press-relea...
2/3 and 3/5 are common.
This way it's hard for a theif to find enough keys to steal your BTC, and you get additional backups in case something happens to one or more of your keys.
In all seriousness, I completely agree. I'm not in crypto and this is part of the reason. There would be a huge influx of people like me if there weren't such a risk of theft (by individuals or platforms).
Maybe put some in Gold, Silver and Real Estate too.
Obviously you should never put everything in one basket.
Stock are to me a different class of investment from life savings type of stuff.
> To clarify, the idea is I need to keep my life savings in a fire-proof, theft-proof safe?
But yeah, you should definitely have a _portion_ of your life savings in a well hidden quality safe.
That said, you probably only need to put one key in a safe. Hide the other and give the third to a friend or custodial service like unchained capital.
For day to day use, transfer what you need to and from cold storage to hot wallets.
The more wealth you have the more security you need, and you should count governmental and institutional actors in you decisions or you will ignore threats from counterparty risk, inflation, confiscation, and taxation.
> 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.
Welcome to reality. You'll laugh now, but if you want to hold something of lasting value, that's kinda how it works.
Gold is physical and requires security.
Dollars lose their value to dilution.
Other securities incur risks too.
Multisig BTC looks downright safe in comparison
My crypto has lost more value than any of my other investments. Since crypto (unlike stocks and bonds) doesn’t entitle me to any cash flows, and (unlike dollars) doesn’t allow me to repay any debts, why shouldn’t the value keep dropping?
And now the same is happening to the regular markets since higher rates are sucking dollars from the market.
My Amazon RSUs are 1/2 of my grant date and falling fast.
Shtcoins gonna sht, but BTC hasn't failed in any way, and multisig makes it easier than any other commodity to secure.
I assume one of the signatures is my hardware wallet. Who holds the other signature? Do they have SIPC insurance?
What happens if my wallet is lost or destroyed?
Now a thief needs to steal 3 of these to steal the coins. That's going to be hard for a thief to do. If a fire or natural disaster happens, it needs to destroy 3 wallets before I lose my money.
But it won't be perfectly executed. Let's say you need to do a transaction while you're moving house. And maybe one of your relatives is in financial trouble.
You (probably) don't have the means to do what banks do, and hire an armored transport.
Further, unlike an armored truck full of cash, security by obscurity is really easy here. That and for a short duration (say moving houses as you suggest) one could wipe a cold wallet clean and just remember a seed phrase. Personally, I don't have enough wealth to make this sort of maneuver at all worth it, but it's completely do-able.
Since then I don't believe in short SPOFs.
You could get hit in the head by a robber on your way moving your furniture, because the robber thinks you may be hauling high value stuff, and lose the passphrase. If you back it up on paper then the unguarded house may be broken into, and they steal the bag that had the paper passphrase.
Extremely unlikely that it'll happen to you, but extremely unlikely things happen all the time to someone.
3/5 multisig with collaborative custody would likely already be at least as safe as dollar checking accounts.
> 3/5 multisig with collaborative custody would likely already be at least as safe as dollar checking accounts.
I think that's off by orders of magnitude. If the whole US did this then I'd expect thousands to screw it up every year.
"Just don't make any mistake, ever" doesn't scale. Not to more people, and not to any one person, given enough time.
It's like running a yellow light (and the occasional red, when you thought it'd be yellow a bit longer). You can go your entire life never being in an accident. But there are accidents every day because people run yellow lights.
At this point we'd both need to go do extensive research at the levels of a full time job to really prove one way or the other.
Suffice it to say we disagree and you seem to have much more trust in institutions than I.
If we are all just taking these coins out of circulation to make them as hard as possible for anyone to access, including ourselves -- then what was the point of the entire thing again?
> But aren't we still pretending that crypto is a currency?
These are such smug comments.
> So this means anytime I actually want to spend some of my own money, I need to go to the bank deposit box and also find at least one friend to help me out?
No, it means you have options to fully secure and own crypto assets in a way dollar bills or bank accounts never allowed. You don't have to do it this way, but if you actually have wealth, you should protect the larger portion of it.
If you have $1000 worth of BTC, just carry it in a hot wallet.
If you have $10000 probably put $9000 in a cold wallet and $1000 in a hot wallet for spending.
If you have $100000, you should probably use 2/3 or 3/5 multisig with a collaborative custody company like unchained capital.
If you have another order of magnitude more money than that you probably know better than myself how to hold your wealth.
In any of these cases, you have full control. Nobody can move your BTC without your sign-off. Your capital cannot be rehypothecated.
So in response to your smug question, yes lock away in deep dark vaults your wealth should you have enough to care about. For daily spending walk around using your hot wallet.
Your comp sci oriented since you're on HN, so if that still doesn't satisfy you, then think of it using caching layers. Keep the bulk of your wealth (should you have enough to justify it) in an L1 deep cold storage, then another smaller chunk in L2 cold storage in a single wallet, and finally L3 in a hot wallet for daily spending.
Another way to view it is if you want anonymity and sovereignty over your dollar bills, you have no choice but to secure it yourself -- probably in a safe.
If you're willing to let someone be a dollar custodian (banker) in today's system, they'll only keep a fractional reserve and lend it out. In actuality today they have other more complicated (but lesser) reserve requirements and without the FDIC bank runs would be commonplace. There's then a whole discussion about the solidity of the FDIC and whether it may collapse.
Fractional reserve systems create the banking cycle and is why we have booms and busts. Ponzi's and fractional reserve systems in crypto are why the crypto market just boomed and busted. There are a small number of legitimate crypto currencies and they're value is tied to the illegitimate ones simply due to crypto-crypto liquidity vs crypto-fiat liquidity.
In this thread nobody is taking a holistic view of what BTC provides.
Even comments that say we're not talking about valuation.
The problem is valuation is part of the reason BTC matters. Sure, you can get custodial security in dollars, but they'll be devalued for banking and governmental purposes.
BTC is sound money that's actually easier to store and use than Gold/Silver. That to me is the way to view it.
You can also get access to debt and pay it. Aave, MakerDAO, Alchemyx...
Yeah, more gold is mined in general, but the rate of which is tiny, and the cost of which is way too high.
Of course if we achieve multiplanetary whatever then gold may become worth less, but not worthless.
Still, that's why BTC may be better, buy then what's better? Digital of physical sarcity.
There's a lot of depth and nuance that humans don't have perspective enough to really weigh in on yet here so...
Yeah, when I own a bunch of equity, real estate and other intangible rights, I do my best to fit them all into my back pocket too.
Sure sucks trying to fit a few hundred acres of well placed development ready subdivisions in my jeans, though.
Don't get me wrong, I think they're all probably decent as investments, buy they're a completely different asset class.
I put BTC in the Gold/Silver category in that it can be a hedge against societal issues. In this particular moment, I see BTC as a hedge against the ongoing de-dollarization and eventual inflation or plain lack of purchasing power that could cause.
I also see it as a means of censorship resistance.
Further BTC or any sufficiently distributed money is a way to limit bank/government power since they actually have to tax instead of minting new money.
I try to use my credit card as much as possible for remote purchases, because if the extra legal protections.
Have you bought options with your credit card? Borrowed money against collateral? Purchased and collected revenue rights to music? Traded oil futures?
These are the kinds of things I'm doing frequently on Ethereum.
Unless you're using blockchain financial instruments in order to do more blockchain stuff (the circular use case), the other options are better.
Trading oil futures doesn't need cryptocurrencies. And if you use it anyway then you expose yourself to additional risk not in traditional finance.
E.g. the difference between FTX shenanigans hurting investors (who are now being victim blamed for "not your keys, not your coin") and anyone financially reliant on Tether shenanigans (which includes all holders of BTC) is that Tether seems to be getting away with it, by so far not being subject to a liquidity check / bank run.
The benefit an open finance platform provides is you don't have to have some blessed middleman that conducts the trades or holds money. There are a LOT of these middlemen in finance and many of them are rent seekers abusing laws to their advantage, and working to add more laws to entrench their company as "part of the system".
Then there is the problem of bigger players using their power to "change the terms of the deal" and force smaller players to comply or spend years in court challenging them. When the terms are coded ahead of time and the platform is neutral there is no entity they can corrupt to get their way and the contract executes as specified.
Lastly these systems are transparent, anyone can monitor and report on companies doing dodgy things, rather than a few overworked government bureaucrats. It also makes everything composable with everything else, anyone can build their own Bloomberg terminal equivalent, which is amazing.
FTX isn't DeFi BTW, they were an unregulated opaque trading firm. They are exactly what is wrong with finance.
Does the government have an override mechanism on the blockchain? If yes then what was the point of blockchain. If no, then will the government fork the blockchain?
Does the government just put someone in prison until they give up the keys? Most countries don't have true "life in prison", and what are the implications for the wrongly convicted in the ones that do?
How would you invalidate an illegal smart contract where one party is the estate of someone who died, are in a coma, or gets put under conservatorship?
> The advantage of smart contracts is they automate away the need for costly lawyers in the good case (which is most of the time). You don't need to pay so much overhead for "protection".
Most of lawyer work is clarifying intent, and legal compliance. Smart contracts try to replace the former with coders, but without a common sense safety net. And without the knowledge about what contracts are even legal. As for compliance, that's still needed.
E.g. writing a smart contract to pay someone automatically needs to support garnishing a salary due to various court actions.
What lawyer work exactly becomes automated? Do you know lawyers, and what they spend time on? Every example of smart contracts seem to me to be incredibly arrogant, and even more ignorant about what lawyers do.
It has a smell of "I don't know what they do, which means it can't be hard. I can write a twitter clone in a weekend, so surely I can write a script to replace a lawyer".
You can write a "bucket shop" web app over a weekend, but you need a lawyer to tell you it's illegal, or under which circumstances it's illegal. That's the real "protection".
I mentioned FTX and Tether to point out that the industry is built on a house of cards. E.g. if Tether implodes then that affects your BTC. I'd say it's more likely that Tether implodes than that the US government implodes.
Since they're already practically minting their own dollars they don't need to steal yours.
And if for some reason the FDIC fails, then they effectively will have stolen your dollars.
And if you trust it to a safe in your bedroom, and your house burns down, then... ?
Which is more likely?
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.
So the answers to your questions are:
1) If you entrust it to a safe deposit box then if someone steals it, it is worthless without the pin.
2) If the safe is itself destroyed and with it the device (this is also the case if you have it in a safe deposit box and the depository is burned down or something) then the private keys (and transitively the funds) can still be recovered using the recovery phrase. So if you have securely stored your recovery phrase and are able to retrieve it even this kind of problem won’t cause the accounts to be lost.
So what people tend to recommend is choosing good secure storage for your pin, keeping reasonable physical care of the device, taking the recovery phrase and splitting it into parts and storing those parts separately. If one of the parts is destroyed then you will need to urgently replace the hardware wallet, move the funds and securely store the new recovery phrase because if not you don’t have a fallback if the hardware wallet is destroyed, but otherwise you are good.
[1] https://medium.com/coinmonks/mnemonic-generation-bip39-simpl...
So if someone doesn’t have my wallet but has my recovery phrase they can regenerate my keys and brick my hardware wallet as it sits in my home safe??
Someone else using your recovery phrase to steal your private keys wouldn’t actually brick your hardware wallet. It would still work but obviously since the thing that it was there to secure (your keys) had been stolen that would be moot.
The subtext is that keeping all this stuff secure is hard and depending on your threat model may not be worthwhile. This is similar to the way in which for most people it makes sense to have a bank look after their funds. In the world of crypto though we’ve seen obvious examples of these centralised custodians being untrustworthy and since they are not regulated or FDIC insured or anything of that kind it’s much more risky.
[1] If you want the ability to recover your funds if the hardware device becomes inoperable, lost, stolen etc. If not you could just burn the recovery phrase so you don’t need to secure it.
Especially if you stored solid brick of gold instead of money
There is a huge amount of vested interest in persuading people bitcoin or ethereum require no trust in third parties. This is not true, as illustrated by this case: the person writing code that’s supposed to secure your money made incorrect assumptions about security and was thus robbed. If you own bitcoin, you necessarily need to trust this person and his colleagues are neither malicious nor stupid. Why that’s better than making the same assumptions about state institutions and banks is, to me, not clear.
this seems more like it could be similar to a simple boating accident
It requires trust that third parties will act rationally in accordance with the incentives provided by the system, which is very different from trusting someone to custody assets for you.
At a larger level it requires trust that people will continue to see BTC/ETH/etc as being worth something, but that isn't a unique problem to blockchain based digital currency solutions.
It's no different from bank login in the end, once someone has it, it can be transferred at will.
Sure, the difference is that in banking system bank doesn't need your credentials to do stuff with money but even that when big crypto bois money are involved stops being immutable as DAO ethereum fork proves, fuck with important people money and nothing is sacred.
Bank login credentials do not confer undisputed ownership of an account. If someone unauthorized gets ahold of them, the bank doesn't throw up its hands and say "welp, nothing we can do now, the account just belongs to the hacker".
Pretty much this is what banks try if they can: https://youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E
That's one way, but not the only one.
My preferred mean of storage is through a _vault_ smart contract, such as the "Gnosis safe".
It's basically a smart contract that you deploy, and send your assets to. You can then add some of your trusted friends as co-validators and require 2/3 validations for a withdrawal. You can also set a no-validation required threshold at $X/m for the day to day.
> I obviously don’t expect them to guarantee the value of the crypto, just that the broker doesn’t lose it
For the record, brokers rarely (if ever) store or guarantee client money.
Usually you have a custodian to hold your money (who will guarantee deposits, up to some limits), and your broker will unlock a credit line for you based on your collateral posted at the custodian.
There are custodians in crypto as well, "Paxos" and "Coinbase Custody" being the most well known. They will store your money on cold wallets with very strict guarantees (shamir split of the wallet keys among anonymous holders, strong entropy guarantees on key generation, proof of reserve, etc) and unlock it upon verifying your identity with real humans. It's costly though.
Not really. Can be a file copied across dozens of public places that is well-encrypted (say AES256+Blowfish) using a key securely derived (say PBKDF2 with many iterations) from a random password you don't use anywhere else.
That said, if you do that, have a system that will drill you for that password weekly, or you will just forget it. And make sure this system can't be compromised to record your password as you type it.
I remember that Silk Road associated guy that was caught recently with 50000 BTC. I was wondering why he didn’t just encrypt his wallet?
There is no way crypto coin will work for society at large with such requirements.
https://twitter.com/lukedashjr/status/1169615995742380035
https://old.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/4936kw/lukejr_is_...
Dude seriously Thinks the pope isn’t catholic and the sun revolves around the earth
[anon]>>>>> Does the bitcoin community realize how literally crazy this guy is?
[deleted]>>>> They look the other way. He is by most accounts a talented coder who understands bitcoin's protocol better than most. His eccentricities are alternatively ignored or tolerated, as they are largely (but not always) harmless as far as Bitcoin is concerned.
[deleted]>>>> This tradeoff seems common in fringe libertarian groups. There's always one guy in the group who wants to overthrow the government solely to be able to marry his cousins, and the larger group accepts it because they're not in a position to turn down his assistance.
theskepticalheretic>>> Yeah but that's one hell of a faustian bargain. It wouldn't be too difficult to get a new developer up to speed, or find an equally talented developer who isn't batshit crazy. His craziness drives people away from any project he works on.
Hodldown>> I think you are wrong, I think bitcoin has been looking for real programmers for years but this poor quality of losers, weirdos and vrml dropouts is the best that showed up. I think this is the highest quality a project like this gets.
theskepticalheretic> Well the confounding factor would probably be that experienced high quality programmers have some historical understanding of distributed systems. When they look at bitcoin they chuckle and think "Haha, it's that silly shit from the 90's we used to use to test who had the fastest PC."
I personally know at least two sedevancatists who are amazing coders.
Studying Aquinas is much better preparation for programming than studying Barth.
Hopefully he didn't also lose any SSH keys with push rights to the repo.
It seems reasonable that some due diligence in this area be done in light of this discovery.
In this case you can substitute "nuttiest" with "most lazy".
>The whole point is that he should be the one of most knowledgeable exemplary users.
In this case it wasn't because of lack of knowledge, it was something else (eg. laziness/apathy/cockiness). Kind of like how most people know that they should eat less and exercise more, but don't.
Luke has specifically denied this (before you posted your comment)
edit:
if you're talking about https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1609661811455819776, my guess is that he's either omitting something (eg. the cold wallet was internet connected, or there was a backup of its wallet floating around somewhere), or suffered a stuxnet level attack.
https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1609683917644120067
You can easily browse through his recent tweets here https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/with_replies
Also, how is having a hardware wallet supposed to be secure? Hardware wallets may get stolen, lost, damaged, etc.
Edit: Also, the link you have shared doesn’t even allow you to choose the “New” user type option if you pick a hardware wallet, allowing you to choose only the Experienced user type option.
IOW, a hardware wallet is something that’s only considered usable by someone who is experienced.
It doesn't matter if he did it right or not.
He got robbed and he will never see his crypto again.
How on earth would anyone with less knowledge than him be able to do it right.
You probably give up explaing my mom why she should have used a hardware wallet...
Soon you will see people saying you should have done this or that complicated thing, or how somebody so smart could should have known better.
No matter what they say it is never enough. This is why lack of consumer protections suck.
He might be a bitcoin core Dev but does he use ledger/trezor etc?
Is his PGP key on his hardrive or a smartcard?
In this day and age your computer not a bastion it once was. (It never really was but it's more of a problem in 2022 than 1982).
The system needs to be tolerant of failures and faults of multiple natures. And cryptocurrency is very intolerant or many types of failures and faults.
So why is crypto the only thing getting attention?
> Soon you will see people saying you should have done this or that complicated thing
and you answer:
> Is his PGP key on his hardrive or a smartcard?
you're proving their point.
I would assume that if you are a major player in the bitcoin world, you should do complicated things to secure yourself.
Its sort of like if someone wins the lottery, and tells the world they are putting the money under their mattress in their home. Its not unreasonable to say that such a person faces more risk than an ordinary person and should install an alarm system or something.
The Bitcoin model is broken. It very intentionally got rid of all the institutions that regulate and control finance, and in doing so, it got rid of everything that protects regular people from the wolves. The regular people aren't up to the task of protecting themselves, and they regularly show it. The model is broken.
But to the specific point, there is no model that fully takes this into account. There is no model that puts risk to zero. There will always be adversaries that can attack you if the payoff is large enough. There will always be people with increased risk exposure who have to take special precautions because the effort/reward calculus makes sense for malicious people to attack them.
The reason bitcoin sucks is not because its model includes such situations; it sucks because the bar for someone to be the type of person who has to care about such things in bitcoin is so much lower than in traditional banking.
If you don't take up the easy convenient solution to your problem that's on you.
Hopefully this is a starting red flag for the bitcoin Dev team to implement hardware wallet support.
That's the absurd confirmation bias going on in this thread.
Cryptos piffy catchphrase is be your own bank. you can own security far beyond a bank vault for like £40 if you get a ledger nano...
Agreed, and the problem is that this is a feature. Without that feature of a lack of central control, Bitcoin's main use case is invalid.
Internet security is 99% "nobody gives enough damn to do it".
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.
People have touted capability-based security, but I don't think that's the answer, at least for consumer devices (phones and not-administered-by-IT computers). Users will give an app whatever permissions it asks for in order for it to shut up and start running, and those permissions will be used to gut their security. It may limit the damage somewhat, depending on how disciplined the app and the user are, but it will only reduce the damage.
We need a completely different answer. I don't know what it is.
As another poster said, we need some other computing paradigm, but I don't know what that would look like. All I know is something is broken if these behemoth companies with limitless resources still get it wrong.
Yes, Qubes does not solve the problems like Spectre and Meltdown. Yes, you must trust your hardware to use it. If you are looking to solve such problem, then you might be interested in a stateless laptop: https://blog.invisiblethings.org/papers/2015/state_harmful.p....
Apart from that, I believe, the best computing paradigm is free software and free hardware, but it does not seem too widespread now unfortunately. This would be the actual solution. The "behemoth companies" are not trying to solve computer security. They are trying to get as much profit as possible, and it goes against security of the users. This is why they are not supporting free software.
My current "good enough" solutions are disabled and neutralized ME in a laptop and Librem 5 phone.
So, rather than the consumer being responsible for their actions you support consumers engaging in whatever risky behavior they like as long as someone else is there to protect them or give them a do-over?
Then again, the point the GP seems to make is that this kind of platform should not be adopted for anything important, let the gamblers gamble if they want but don't try to sell it to the general public.
Yes. Every time you make a foolproof system the world brings us a bigger fool. I'd rather a few irresponsible people get a do-over than otherwise responsible people getting rekt like this.
That's unreasonable for something that's supposed to be used as money
There is a big middle ground between "cover for users engaging in whatever risky behavior they like" and "cover for nothing whatsoever".
In this case, the problem is expecting users to be perfectly diligent, and either discard all convenience or all security.
Cryptocurrency continues to be a case study demonstrating why so many of the systems it's trying (unsuccessfully) to replace operate in ways that it doesn't.
Like in the non-crypto world, banks are the experts on storing money securely, but people still try and rob banks despite ordinary people being much easier targets.
cryptocurrency is stupid. regulation around banks is there for many very good reasons.
https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1609655629903265795
you won’t trust highly regulated banks, but you will trust random strangers on the internet whom you know want your wallet and all the coins in it, without any guarantees whatsoever that any security is in place. you only need to trust yourself, which is already 8-10 orders of magnitude less trustworthy than a bank, AT BEST.
even in the rare event that an established bank does go under, and it holds some of your money when it does, FDIC insurance will get you at least some of that money back. cryptocurrency has zero recourse if you are harmed.
i laugh when cryptobros and NFTbros lose money, because anyone with any critical thinking skills whatsoever saw these things as shams at the outset, and we tried to speak up, but none of those who have lost money even considered listening at the time.
it is hilarious to me when these things happen. i actually, literally, laugh out loud, without a single hint of remorse.
Do we know that? The tweet you linked to basically says, we have no idea what happened so we have no idea if it was targeted or not.
But i do agree generally that i have no idea why "imagine the financial system but with no regulation or oversight" is considered a selling point.
A lot of hope, actually. If he followed the simple and oft repeated advice of using a cold wallet and/or offline computer, this attacked would have been mitigated. Hell, if some of the comments/speculation in this thread is true (ie. he kept his wallet.dat on a server connected to the internet), then this hack wouldn't have affected the user with the most basic setup of a software wallet running on a computer behind a NAT firewall.
Every random walk down the timeline results in 100% of coins lost or stolen.
[edit] You can only blame the user so many times before you have to really look inward haha.
Anyways those doing the foisting also includes all the shills, the laser-eyed, the influencers. [edit] It's not enough to say because they weren't forced at gunpoint, it's not coercive or immoral. We don't accept that behavior from people shilling penny stocks. And of course Salvadoran shopowners were in fact coerced with force.
Sure, there are institutional investors holding crypto, but how is this related to the current discussion of securing crypto? They're not exactly keeping their crypto holdings in a software wallet connected to the internet. They typically outsource that to companies that specialize in crypto custody, which presumably have better security practices than the OP.
It preys of financially illiterate people who don't know better because they have been bombarded without any pause by endless list of bullshit as soon as they put the word 'investment', 'money', 'market' or whatever in any search box in the world, that being the one from your local bookstore, online newspapers, youtube, google, reddit and on and on and on...
And if you tell me fractional banking system is a ponzi scheme then you either don't have a clue of what they are or you pretend to.
It doesn't matter which companies, individuals or wathever .org or 'coin something' websites promote them or make a business of them because they're all fucking hucksters at worst or paid shills at best.
Talking 'security' about investment scams is like talking personnal safety in '101 suicide' book.
Except in this case, it seems like he went out of his way to make it less secure, by putting his wallet on his server. This isn't a case of someone losing his mattress savings in a random home burglary, this is a case of someone leaving a duffle bag of cash in the seat of a car.
I mean this guy is already demanding the FBI get involved when the FBI's position is you should just put it in a bank account and not need to call us in the first place.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertari...
I think you're conflating "someone who is defending crypto in this particular instance" with "someone who thinks bitcoin will take over the world".
>I mean this guy is already demanding the FBI get involved when the FBI's position is you should just put it in a bank account and not need to call us in the first place.
Yeah, I think we're in agreement here that he was acting like an idiot.
We've talked a few times, I always appreciate your perspective :)
But even if that weren't true, that doesn't mean its a good idea to use it or advocate for it or pretend it doesn't have these glaring flaws as folks march onward toward the abyss and take down the normies with them.
It's everyone's responsibility to call out bad ideas that harm us all. Especially when as soon as anything goes wrong, the afflicted yell "HELP! POLICE!!" just like our tweeter down-thread. That's a draw on public resources which puts this discourse squarely in the public interest. Not to mention spending like 0.6% of the world's electricity on coal-powered lotto ticket scratcher machines undergirding the whole charade.
The worst part is when things start to go wrong all the talking heads jump in and start saying "nobody could have seen this coming!!" and "crypto deserves better critics!!" It has fantastic critics - you just have to listen. Critics aren't supposed to say things you want to hear.
Your average user will install whatever crap they find on the Internet. Hell, a friend of mine (in their 20s, not a grandma) recently installed god knows what when “Windows support” called. And it’s not the first time a friend fell for this kind of scam.
[1] https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1609655629903265795
https://twitter.com/naka_frodo/status/1609655813789949959/ph...
Edit: Also it sounds like he didn't immediately shut down the server after the first hack? That is completely insane. I understand you want to investigate but you are leaving yourself wide open leaving the system running. It's been compromised. End of story.
Then in his arrogance he thought he's expert enough to "clean" the compromised server even when every security guy will tell you to take the data out and burn it to the ground if there is even a suspicion of compromise.
1. Was he storing important secrets on a random server somewhere? A PGP key? Why?
2. Before this went down, he noticed someone broke in TWICE and he didn't shut down the server? What was the rationale? Security wise, is there something preventing you from downloading what is important to you and wiping the whole thing?
1) he thinks that "dedicated servers" are in any way secure
2) discovers malicious intrusion, but doesn't burn down the whole server and re-key everything
3) is supposed to be knowledgable enough to be a core Bitcoin developer but stays on a "dedicated server" after finding malicious intrusion.
This is highly suspect. Either you have stuff that's not worth much, and therefore you don't pay to physically colocate your own server, or at very least you don't pay enough to get a server from a smaller company where you're dealing with real humans with names and reputations... Or you're storing things that really matter, have a large value, or likely both, and you'd pay extra to get better things.
What kind of hubris would lead to continuing to use a compromised server, particularly when the compromise appears to have come from the hosting provider?
Perhaps we need to wait for more information, but from what I've seen so far, there's something not right here.
"Appears to" to the incompetent victim of attack, "I dunno how it happened therefore it must be hosting provider".
He has found no avenue of attack, decided he must be perfect sysadmin so it couldn't be say just a plain 0-day or fact he didn't upgrade some software with security problem and went on blaming hosting provider.
... then continued to use not only same provider but same compromised server for months.
Smart guy ego at work
I don't know this person, I am not involved in any way in the bitcoin ecosystem ... but I have thought about it a fair amount, specifically wrt opsec and security practices, self custody, etc.
One of the conclusions I have always come to was:
If I was known to have a lot of bitcoin, for any reason, I would work hard to make it public knowledge that all that bitcoin was gone.
Experts did make mistakes for the challenger explosion, but they did much better than the average person. Put 1000 people at complete random into a room and say design and build a rocket, I suspect they won't even get to the build phase after several years.
When it comes to something everyone should be able to do, an expert making a mistake is a bad omen for the rest of us.
Hardware all the way.
I have my pgp key on a yubikey, my crypto on a ledger. My passwords on a mooltipass.
There are few mistakes I could make leading to this kind of compromise. Perhaps none!
That 1000 random people will build it, get it on the launchpad, and press the button. That's not the problem. It's getting to orbit (and back) that would be highly unlikely.
Management chose not to listen.
Because no one can create secure software yet, Bitcoin isn't 100% secure.
This is a case of someone expecting a single machine connected to the internet that had been compromised in the past, to not be compromised again.
Very little software has rigorous security review, even the Linux kernel. Linux Odays sell for $50-100k. If you are storing anything more valuable than that on an internet connected Linux machine, it will eventually be stolen.
Use an offline machine or a hardware wallet for anything that matters to you.