The device itself can be hacked

The company that sells it periodically pushes out firmware updates

The recovery seed in the wrong hands is gg for your coins

Storing encrypted private keys on a machine that has never touched the internet is obviously superior.

I have no personal experience with it, but it's supposed to be good. A hardware wallet is the safest option, that is not a total pain in the ass to set up and use.

This is why IMO it's best to use a device that has been around for years (like Trezor), where many developers and security researchers already looked at the code and potential security vulnerabilities are already fixed. At least at Trezor there has been some vulnerabilities indeed which has been fixed already (note: afaik none on the level of "remote attacker can steal all your coins", just relatively smaller ones.)

You will have to manually update and it's open-source. If there is something malicious in the code or if the firmware checksum doesn't match, I am sure you will hear about it. I realize 99.99% of people don't look at the code, but IMO just wait few weeks before updating (unless crucial update) and you can be pretty sure some people audited the code IMO.

Yes, you should really take "backing up the seed" serious, both for this reason and for example a fire that destroys both your backup seed and hardware device.

In terms of security, that is indeed obviously superior.

But for example: there are plenty of gambling sites out there who hold thousands of coins on a Trezor. And obviously so many people by now too (also Ledger btw.) AFAIK so far the number of "lost coins incidents" are pretty much 0. The ease-of-use is so much superior against a encrypted always-offline computer, that I do think a hardware wallet is the best wallet choice for the average user.

Really good interview on what's coming for bitcoin, the UASF, Aug 1st, and more

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH6p3WE3v8Q

Show your homework

It is so unbelievably sad that people are so upset about my opinions on ethereum that they will hunt down every post I make in an attempt to discredit or humiliate my arguments.

Fortunately for me, these people are simply wayward mETH addicts. Perhaps kazuyas bags from $400 are heavier than anticipated.


While it is true that you can inject any firmware into a trezor, doing so without the correct master key sign from trezor will result in a wiped trezor. This is hardcoded into its boot loader: an improperly signed firmware will wipe the device. To be clear, no one without the correct master key from trezor (aka satoshi labs) can inject firmware into your trezor and extract its private keys.

Periodically, satoshilabs releases new firmware to increase functionality with altcoins. Trezor's boot loader ensures that no one can remotely update your firmware: it must be physically activated. Further, a hash of the firmware update is shown on the device before it is loaded, meaning you can independently verify the firmware package being uploaded onto your trezor, if you were to ever fear that satoshilabs was pushing compromised firmware.

In summary:

For the vast majority of people who are simply users of bitcoin, a hardware wallet such as trezor is extremely secure. It's software stack is robust now that it is extremely difficult to screw something up, not like running an airgapped computer that you touch once a month and shuffle signed txns from with potentially dirty USB sticks-- from which then you'll need to be running a full node to be broadcasting your txns from.

aside from https://jochen-hoenicke.de/trezor-power-analysis/ an attack that requires physical access to trezor, there have been no known/accepted successful attacks on trezor or ledger.

ledger uses a industry standard open source secure enclave. I dont own one, but it is generally accepted that the two devices are interchangeable in terms of security.

Ok so Desantis is either a complete hack/extremist or my understanding of Bitcoin is laughably low.

It's most likely the latter.

Would love to hear what some of the more experienced people here think of him?

There has been other (relatively small) security vulnerabilities. For example in 2014 there was a way to potentially stop the "PIN brute-force delay" with special hardware (initially found by Ledger and fixed here.) This is why I like Trezor, the firmware is open-source for years and therefor it is likely that most security vulnerabilities are already fixed

High Crypto Guy imo

You are a little too sensitive, pal. I am not attacking you personally nor "hunting down your posts". What you posted was categorically untrue and I felt compelled to inform people who may not have known. If you were early in either btc or eth and have life changing money in crypto now, it is totally worth it to learn more about this.

While there are prob many people on this forum who bought high looking for the free monies who you may classify as "mETH addicts", you should realize that I am not one of these people.

everyone should know segwit2x is actually bad news and not good:

https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/the-c...n-eb87c18fad60

it's a highjacking attempt to take bitcoin development from Bitcoin Core.

UASF Aug 1st or bust imo.

Yup, status quo has been good to Jihan.

It almost worked. Luke-jr pretty much revived 148 from the dead (at a point I was ready to give up on it), and it scared the piss out of the miners into capitulation.

DeSantis is an interesting guy, definitely on the extreme side, definitely paranoid (just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you).

WhalePanda is good people. He gets it right more than just about anyone.

Core has no one to blame but themselves for segwit2x. They should have written code to hard fork and honor the hong kong agreement years ago but they didn't and instead they're stuck with Jeff Garzik's largely untested code.

You can't deny that

1. Tx malleability bug needs to be fixed
2. The blocksize must get raised eventually

You may not like the implementation or timing, but if you/core doesn't like it you/they could have written your own implementation and proposed a new timeline. Instead core said fix 1) and MAYBE we'll talk about 2). The miners didn't like that. Ultimately it's been a fight about how the tx fees are going to be divied up in the years to come. Core/blockstream want more on layer 2. Miners want more layer 1. Segwit2x is a reasonable compromise imo considering all that's happened.

This is incorrect. The code was written and all obligations were met. The community rejected it. There's been a lot of lies about this. Miners, on the other hand, broke the agreement within one week. Luke and Johnson did what was asked of them anyway.

I can deny #2. It doesn't have to get raised. SegWit in fact is proof of it - it increases the capacity without increasing the base block size.


Core wrote something that solved malleability (the bad kinds) and also increased capacity 2-4x. Miners blocked it to protect ASICBoost. Miners did not disclose this information until it was reverse engineered.


SegWit2X is nothing more than a corporate takeover that Amir Taaki warned about years ago. They want to be the new middlemen and shape Bitcoin to fit their future monopoly. Water cannot compromise with poison and be safe.

Segwit alone only gets bitcoin to ~15 transactions per second max. It's not enough long term as a settlement layer.

Why was there no BIP?

Edit: I see by capacity increase you're not actually referring to blocksize increase. They didn't actually write code that increased the blocksize. If they did please point to the BIP.

~15 tx/sec BASE LAYER.

Other improvements can simply use other layers. Drivechain is one model that will allow users to choose a different security model with different tradeoffs, for example, while still using Bitcoin. LN will allow a few hundred million users. That will last us a while.

Because it was not popular enough to warrant one. It was basically ignored, no one actually wanted that.

The research is here: https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/

The block size increases. There just is a way to create smaller blocks for unupgraded nodes. The block size is now replaced with a block weight of 4M units, which is a maximum size of 4MB.

I think the fact that segwit2x will likely be activated disproves this.

Bitcoin as a whole will become obsolete as soon as quantum computers are mass marketed.

I don't really see the point of softforking segwit to avoid a hardfork and then hardfork blocksize. Imo segwit should be hardforked along with blocksize. But core were stubborn with not hardforking and miners wanted hardforking. So now we get this half solution where everyone is unhappy. But imo this is good, at least the stale mate is broken. And hopefully core will be replaced by some organisation that is more willing to listen to miners.

sensitive?


You seem dead set on convincing everyone you're not a bag holder and that your cost average is 0.02c on ethereum and 0.50c on bitcoin

No one here ****ing cares about those things. Is your ego that fragile? Snowflake...?



You made a post that was at best worded improperly because you are ignorant. I corrected the record for you, and you subsequently focused on everything but the actual issue and argument at hand. Please show your homework on where I was "categorically" wrong, and then please show how bitcoin hardware wallets get easily penetrated as you wrote here



we are all waiting for your research.

edit:

I know this would be extremely difficult for you, but please try not to make a reply using a pronoun. Let's just stick to the facts, no one generally cares about how heavy your bags are/arent.

I think you have the wrong impression of Core.

They are the unsung hero of this whole drama. They are a group of volunteers that want the best for Bitcoins. They are not forcing anyone to use their code, they're not even advocating BIP148.

The miners are the neforious agents. They wanted to block segwit because it would patch ASICBoost and kill their profits. It was unknown why they didn't approve of Segwit before, but it is pretty clear now.

This /|\

Emailed Coinbase about a week ago without a response, wondering if anyone has an answer for me

I moved some bitcoin from my blockchain to coinbase on Jun 29th. As of this post, the transaction has 2,872 confirmations but is still listed as pending

The transaction is ony a few dollars so I can find the humor in the situation, but is it just lost in the void forever?

Also, how did this happen? I always use the BC recommended fee and now I'm worried it may happen again in the future for a more meaningful amount

not sure how you posted that exchange, but didnt post the "i will eat my dick on live TV" if btc isnt 500k within 3 years.