Crypto users quickly forget. Blind them with an airdrop or two, a special deal, or perhaps an NFT with promises of huge profits in the future, and many of them will come back to using Atomic Wallet, having forgotten all about this incident a long time ago.
such topics will not appear first when searching, these wallets do not give any warnings, and there is no guarantee that they have fixed everything. Therefore, good marketing in this industry is able to cover up software failures, and unfortunately some will return to using the wallet with the increase in the price of Bitcoin. I only hope that these topics will have more discussion on social media. 
Topic: A Non-Custodial wallet, Atomic Wallet, being compromised (Read 2334 times)
You're absolutely right, but it's not the idea to say I'm not interested, the collective interest is necessary for the support of the entire crypto ecosystem, a response to what happened has to be demanded, That allows support for the crypto environment, entrepreneurs, and end-users.
But still no real info coming out of atomic about what happened or how it happened.
That should already tell something and it's not good news. How many months have already passed? I lost track and kind of don't care anymore, too. I don't expect any honest statement of truth from Atomic, anyway.
Atomic is either itself incapable or incompetent to execute own investigations or too cheap to pay a capable forensic company to do it for them OR they know what happened and have chosen to keep the facts burried under a pile of silence and nonsense bits of "news" about it.
With such a post-mortem handling policy Atomic has forfeited all trustworthiness in my opinion. I wouldn't use this wallet anymore and ever again. I used this wallet only briefly to collect fork coins of older Bitcoin UTXOs a few years ago and I moved my coins out of this wallet quickly and long before the last incident happened.
Just as an FYI:
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/11/29/crypto-mixer-sanctioned-by-us-treasury-for-north-korea-allegations-as-fbi-and-finish-police-seize-website/
https://www.elliptic.co/blog/analysis/35-million-atomic-wallet-hacker-funnels-crypto-to-north-korea-s-favored-mixer
But still no real info coming out of atomic about what happened or how it happened.
-Dave
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/11/29/crypto-mixer-sanctioned-by-us-treasury-for-north-korea-allegations-as-fbi-and-finish-police-seize-website/
https://www.elliptic.co/blog/analysis/35-million-atomic-wallet-hacker-funnels-crypto-to-north-korea-s-favored-mixer
But still no real info coming out of atomic about what happened or how it happened.
-Dave
They made an update to June 3rd Event Statement the other say.
Still says 'not our fault, looking in to it'
https://atomicwallet.io/blog/articles/june-3rd-event-statement
I'm guessing that they hope it just quietly fades away and drops from peoples memories.
-Dave
Still says 'not our fault, looking in to it'
https://atomicwallet.io/blog/articles/june-3rd-event-statement
I'm guessing that they hope it just quietly fades away and drops from peoples memories.
-Dave
And still no update. Really wonder if they are looking into it or hoping it goes away.
Since people are still using it and talking about using it and so on, I guess people don't care about their crypto.
If you want to use a wallet like this how about I just post a bunch of addresses that belong to me and I'll send you some crypto back later if I feel like it.
If not I'll just keep it. Seems to be the same service as Atomic.
-Dave
But i would count this blog (which updated on October 19 without creation date) as an update, https://atomicwallet.io/blog/articles/2m-of-suspicious-deposits-frozen-on-centralised-exchanges. But it's rather vague and there's no mention whether the victim receive their coin back. And assuming that blog is being truthful and accurate, it's interesting the hacker use combination of bridge, exchange and mixer to hide trace.
It still does not tell what happened. That is IMO still the issue.
Even a 'we don't know and are still looking into it' is better then this.
Was it on their end in terms of the servers. Was is on the app end? Was it a malicious library / supply chain attack?
So now according to them some funds are frozen. Great. What is the next step? Do they have a next step?
-Dave
They made an update to June 3rd Event Statement the other say.
Still says 'not our fault, looking in to it'
https://atomicwallet.io/blog/articles/june-3rd-event-statement
I'm guessing that they hope it just quietly fades away and drops from peoples memories.
-Dave
Still says 'not our fault, looking in to it'
https://atomicwallet.io/blog/articles/june-3rd-event-statement
I'm guessing that they hope it just quietly fades away and drops from peoples memories.
-Dave
And still no update. Really wonder if they are looking into it or hoping it goes away.
Since people are still using it and talking about using it and so on, I guess people don't care about their crypto.
If you want to use a wallet like this how about I just post a bunch of addresses that belong to me and I'll send you some crypto back later if I feel like it.
If not I'll just keep it. Seems to be the same service as Atomic.
-Dave
I really do not understand the affiliation of the people with atomic wallet who are still using it ? Or maybe they are not aware of this vulnerability in the atomic wallet
We are not short of Non-Custodial wallets in the market that we have no option but to use the Atomic wallet
The one who knows about the history of atomic wallet and still does not quit it, i am sorry that they have no idea how to protect their assets. They will only learn lessons once they themselves lose their money.
They made an update to June 3rd Event Statement the other say.
Still says 'not our fault, looking in to it'
https://atomicwallet.io/blog/articles/june-3rd-event-statement
I'm guessing that they hope it just quietly fades away and drops from peoples memories.
-Dave
Still says 'not our fault, looking in to it'
https://atomicwallet.io/blog/articles/june-3rd-event-statement
I'm guessing that they hope it just quietly fades away and drops from peoples memories.
-Dave
And still no update. Really wonder if they are looking into it or hoping it goes away.
Since people are still using it and talking about using it and so on, I guess people don't care about their crypto.
If you want to use a wallet like this how about I just post a bunch of addresses that belong to me and I'll send you some crypto back later if I feel like it.
If not I'll just keep it. Seems to be the same service as Atomic.
-Dave
Importing the seed phrase of a compromised or closed source wallet into a good and well reviewed software wallet like Electrum is not good practice, your wallet can still be compromised because you are still using a seed phrase that you can't verify how it was generated. What you should do is create a new wallet in Electrum and send out all your funds from the closed source or compromised wallet into the new wallet you have created and verified.
Unless you absolutely have to, you shouldn't be importing your seed or keys into multiple wallets regardless if they are open-source or not. Luckily, it doesn't cost anything to generate a new seed and create a new wallet, and it's safer than using the same one in multiple software. The person you quoted also doesn't seem to know that importing a seed phrase into a second software isn't equivalent to having sent the coins from software A to software B. The import only duplicates the old wallet, and your seed is now entered into two or more software depending on how many times you imported the seed. The coins haven't "moved" anywhere.
I think should also be visible in the Beginners and Help section to warn newbies out there and start importing their wallets to those who are not yet affected. Transferring their fund by importing the 12 words into other wallets like Electrum might be a good step or any wallets that support importing BIP39 seed phrases.
Importing the seed phrase of a compromised or closed source wallet into a good and well reviewed software wallet like Electrum is not good practice, your wallet can still be compromised because you are still using a seed phrase that you can't verify how it was generated. What you should do is create a new wallet in Electrum and send out all your funds from the closed source or compromised wallet into the new wallet you have created and verified. By the way, if all closed source wallets are not recommended, why do we use/promote Ledger Nano (Hardware Wallet) ? It is also a closed source as I know.
Who is we?AFAIK, I haven't seen members recommend ledger Nano for a while. It's receiving heavy criticism even when they tried to make a comeback by faking their source code status
I just mean that we usually say that hardware wallets are safe and when we talk about hardware wallet, most common ones are Trezor and Ledger, Anyways now with so many issues with closed source wallets, i would avoid the closed source hardware wallets too.
New statement can be used for bitcoin wallet: not open source, not your coins.
That is what i was thinking too. The centralized wallets do not give you the private keys and the closed source ones, can still know our private keys through the source code, without the need to make the user being aware of it.
They made an update to June 3rd Event Statement the other say.
Still says 'not our fault, looking in to it'
I would be interested to find out what math they used exactly to calculate that only 0.1% atomic users got affected by this issue Still says 'not our fault, looking in to it'
In best case this can only be people who contacted them and reported loss of coins with transactions they didnt make, and nobody knows how many people never contacted atomic amateurs.
New statement can be used for bitcoin wallet: not open source, not your coins.
By the way, if all closed source wallets are not recommended, why do we use/promote Ledger Nano (Hardware Wallet) ? It is also a closed source as I know.
It is not recommended to use closed source wallets because you cannot review the code, and not because all closed source wallets are unsafe, but we can agree that it is much better to use a well reviewed open source wallet, than a closed source wallet that the code cannot be reviewed. Too many people wrongly think that open source automatically means safety, it doesn't.Ledger, just like Trezor is a hardware wallet that has been 'around' for a long time, and even though they were closed source, their devices were still recommended until they launched the ledger recover service, as a company that should help you store your keys offline, they ought to know that it is unsafe sending it to third parties, when they initially said it couldn't leave the secure element chip. This is the main reason why Ledger shouldn't be recommended, and other things, like being closed source and telling lies.
Trust Wallet is even more widely used than the Atomic wallet.
It doesn't matter if it's widely used. A closed source wallet should not be recommended to anyone when there are several open source walletsThe problem with a closed source wallet is that you are most of the time in the blind until a hack happens - Trust Wallet Hacked. Understanding How It Happened and What to Do Next
By the way, if all closed source wallets are not recommended, why do we use/promote Ledger Nano (Hardware Wallet) ? It is also a closed source as I know.
Who is we?AFAIK, I haven't seen members recommend ledger Nano for a while. It's receiving heavy criticism even when they tried to make a comeback by faking their source code status
Do we have the data revealing how many users were using the atomic wallet before the hack and how many people are still using this wallet?
No, we cannot get that data, but Atomic wallet claims that the hack only affected less than 0.1% of their userbase, so if that is true, maybe so many people who don't know the right thing to do would still be using Atomic wallet.Everyone who hears this news should stop using it even if they do not fall in this 0.1% category. Once hacked, it can be exploit again either by the hackers or by the team themselves.
Even if they were not hacked, it is still not recommended to use closed source wallets like Atomic wallet or Trust wallet.
Trust Wallet is even more widely used than the Atomic wallet. By the way, if all closed source wallets are not recommended, why do we use/promote Ledger Nano (Hardware Wallet) ? It is also a closed source as I know.
They should probably start shutting down they're infrastructure, stop downloads of their software, post warnings in their website. A smart hacker could be collecting a list of wallets they can steal coins from and they're probably preparing the logistics of how they can take all of them in one attack.
Maybe, I say maybe, that little smart hacker is Atomic wallet themselves. Just a wild conspiracy theory there!
Hahaha then let's add more to that conspiracy theory. Maybe, just "maybe", Atomic Wallet's developers are state-sponsored developers waiting for the right time to cause a wave of chaos which perhaps could make a bear-market-causing-crash. - They will execute their exploit/back-door during the new ATH of the next bull cycle, most probably it will be on 2025 or 2026.
Plus did anyone notice that the exploits stop when users start to "notice things".
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They should probably start shutting down they're infrastructure, stop downloads of their software, post warnings in their website. A smart hacker could be collecting a list of wallets they can steal coins from and they're probably preparing the logistics of how they can take all of them in one attack.
Maybe, I say maybe, that little smart hacker is Atomic wallet themselves. Just a wild conspiracy theory there! Do we have the data revealing how many users were using the atomic wallet before the hack and how many people are still using this wallet?
Lol. Would you trust data coming from a company that literally has nothing to say about their software ripping off millions of users' coins? I'm quite having the impression Atomic wallet is closed-source for if it wasn't, even an undergraduate student of CS would be capable of correcting their repo. Do we have the data revealing how many users were using the atomic wallet before the hack and how many people are still using this wallet?
No, we cannot get that data, but Atomic wallet claims that the hack only affected less than 0.1% of their userbase, so if that is true, maybe so many people who don't know the right thing to do would still be using Atomic wallet.To be frank, even if they tell us, what happened, we shouldn't trust them and should not be using that wallet again.
Even if they were not hacked, it is still not recommended to use closed source wallets like Atomic wallet or Trust wallet. 
Do we have the data revealing how many users were using the atomic wallet before the hack and how many people are still using this wallet?
-snip-
-snip-
They claim to have 5 million users[1]. It's difficult to say how many have left though, since there is no trading volume, or live data to look at but I don't think many have left because not that many people have lost their funds (again, according to the team).
Atomic Wallet boasts a user base of over 5 million individuals worldwide
-snip-
-snip-
So it looks like Atomic Wallet has absolutely no interest in revealing what was happening to its infrastructure, and tried to put profit over its users or is trying its best to avoid absolute collapse. Whatever is happening, it does not look good for Atomic at all.
Do we have the data revealing how many users were using the atomic wallet before the hack and how many people are still using this wallet?
To be frank, even if they tell us, what happened, we shouldn't trust them and should not be using that wallet again.
Jump to: