A Hack That Makes Bitcoins a Whole Lot Harder to Steal

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: QuantumQrack on April 10, 2014, 12:10:29 PM

I asked BitGo about how I would transfer my bitcoin if BitGo went out of business or was appropriated or hacked somehow. Basically your fucked. You have to use some convoluted way to move your bitcoin. I wasn't impressed when I found this out, and promptly moved my bitcoin. Until there is an easy way to move your bitcoin independently of BitGo, then their service isn't of much use.

Apparently you have to use this:

https://github.com/BitGo/BitGo-MultiSignature-Offline-Recovery-Tool

tool requires all 3 keys.
if bitco have the time and ability to contact members, verify the members are who they are, and send the 2 service based keys to the user. then bitco can keep their server alive and just tell people to withdraw ASAP. if they cant afford a $10 domain fee per year. then i am starting to see flaws in the business model now..

the code for the tool thogh, could b used for the idea i mentioned a couple post back (signing a TX) and you also dont really need a bitcoinj either you just API it to the PUSHTx api's that some bitcoin services/mining pools have mentioned here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scammers-scamming-scammers-318815

QuantumQrack

sr. member

Activity: 337

Merit: 250

I asked BitGo about how I would transfer my bitcoin if BitGo went out of business or was appropriated or hacked somehow. Basically your fucked. You have to use some convoluted way to move your bitcoin. I wasn't impressed when I found this out, and promptly moved my bitcoin. Until there is an easy way to move your bitcoin independently of BitGo, then their service isn't of much use.

Apparently you have to use this:

https://github.com/BitGo/BitGo-MultiSignature-Offline-Recovery-Tool

windpath

legendary

Activity: 1258

Merit: 1027

Quote from: franky1 on April 10, 2014, 08:26:23 AM

Quote from: windpath on April 09, 2014, 04:36:12 PM

Quote from: franky1 on April 09, 2014, 02:20:24 PM

a server that has no database, no log-ins and no passwords. all it does (client/scriptside) is use a private key, asks for a destination public key. and an amount to send. and forms a signed transaction. then simply sends that transaction into the network.

again all done clientside where the only info sent to the server is a signed TX.

I like it, and its not particularly hard to code, however how do you handle any change?

2 destination addresses 1 belonging to you.

I like it... Simple.

Going on a short family vacation next week, when I get back I'll look into getting it on our site.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: windpath on April 09, 2014, 04:36:12 PM

Quote from: franky1 on April 09, 2014, 02:20:24 PM

a server that has no database, no log-ins and no passwords. all it does (client/scriptside) is use a private key, asks for a destination public key. and an amount to send. and forms a signed transaction. then simply sends that transaction into the network.

again all done clientside where the only info sent to the server is a signed TX.

I like it, and its not particularly hard to code, however how do you handle any change?

2 destination addresses 1 belonging to you.

windpath

legendary

Activity: 1258

Merit: 1027

Quote from: franky1 on April 09, 2014, 02:20:24 PM

a server that has no database, no log-ins and no passwords. all it does (client/scriptside) is use a private key, asks for a destination public key. and an amount to send. and forms a signed transaction. then simply sends that transaction into the network.

again all done clientside where the only info sent to the server is a signed TX.

I like it, and its not particularly hard to code, however how do you handle any change?

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

hmmmmm both positives and negative thoughts on this..

so if you need to store a private key on you. another one is encrypted on a server, that is encrypted using a password you choose and a third is stored offline by the service owner.

then i agree it is more secure as the service owner needs to know your password to unencrypt the second key, to then have 2 keys to allow the transaction.

but what i find funny is, if a user needs to store safely a username, password and a private key, then isnt there an obvious easier way.

imagine this.

a server that has no database, no log-ins and no passwords. all it does (client/scriptside) is use a private key, asks for a destination public key. and an amount to send. and forms a signed transaction. then simply sends that transaction into the network.

again all done clientside where the only info sent to the server is a signed TX.

i know alot of replies will argue the whole keylogger/trojan argument about inputting the private key into a text box. well the same can be said about the username, password and 3rd key that the advertised service requires.

we dont need online wallets storing privkeys.

we just need signed Tx services. where no login credentials are needed. all a person needs is their private key to spend.

pdawg

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

A story on BitGo's multi private key wallet:

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/bitcoin-harder-to-steal/

Topic: A Hack That Makes Bitcoins a Whole Lot Harder to Steal (Read 1376 times)