Topic: Bitcoin developer @lukedashjr's wallet was hacked - page 3. (Read 12796 times)

in that tweet debate just posted.
luke said how his private keys were not compromised to an internet using PC..

luke however did expose his wallet to the internet back in september because we can see he was spending funds in september and sending them to a change address he had in said wallet..
. he also had a wave of hacks happening throughout november-december. and knew the hacker was tailoring the attacks specifically for lukes systems

luke also had to rebuild-recompile a new version of knots because that got compromised too meaning he knows he was compromised.

i understand humans make mistakes, but to say bitcoin is insecure rather then admit he is human.. doesnt play well with me either
he would rather pretend he is the infallible god and bitcoin is broke. pfft.

That sounds quite BS coming from a Bitcoin Core developer, to be honest, considering that he neither used a seed phrase nor a hardware wallet to store his 200 bitcoins. But I also think Hodlonaut is jumping the gun here and exaggerating a bit, as the screenshots he posted are not words to that effect.

It appears that yesterday hodlonaut had some back and forth with LukeDasher via twitter to assert that LukeDasher was misleading people and claiming that there were no ways to keep bitcoin secure

Hodlonaut says:

>>> According to
@LukeDashjr
 there is no way to prevent your bitcoin from being stolen. No safe way to store bitcoin.

Reckless misinformation/FUD, and a huge 🚩
<<<<<

https://twitter.com/hodlonaut/status/1615033789956202496

if using DEX to do silly day trading of btc to stable.. you can stay off the radar

if using DEX to do wire transfers.. then obviously your bank and the other persons bank is watching the wire transfers.

so dont be complacent thinking you are hiding 100% perfectly
and if not operating through a business account but doing many wires you will hit a threshold where banks will start to think your doing too many wires to be a "personal use" and start asking questions

alot of people thought that banks were just anti-bitcoin, truth WAS half that but now mostly its these things:
a. the sender sends fiat. then pretends their bank account was hacked and they want a charge-back/refund. which means receiver has to legitimise his receipt of fiat by revealing what was purchased.

b. sender innocently sending funds to lots of people on a personal account makes banks question the purpose of all these funds movements. treats sender as a business offering a service, thus questions the purpose

these usually mean situations evolve where DEX frequent swappers need to start keeping records like KYC to prove the person at the keyboard of the other side, was the account holder (asks for id and a selfie)
ends up needing to have a business account and register as a MSB aswell or have account closed

many dont see it happen straight away because if unpopular, unregular, insignificant amount/value of wire transfers stay under a threshold.. but when they get popular or people get too comfortable/complacent by doing regular trades on DEX , the flags add up

other flags like someone on a menial income suddenly having a massive $3m deposit or lots of multiple deposits that add up way beyond a salary.. raises some flags

Using a DEX doesn't mean you don't follow legislation. It only means you avoid KYC and giving up self-custody.

Governments, even of the most oppressive regimes, have tried to ban it and did little.

I think there are two possible scenarios to explain how it's still up.

• ChipMixer is operating in a nearly completely anonymous background. They must be doing everything behind Tor in a manner the feds can't de-anonymize.
• ChipMixer is the feds.

The former looks more likely to me.

That's not at all what I said. You don't "have to resort to gift cards" with XMR but as with BTC and every other major cryptocurrency that option is a great way to make real-life use of it. The fee for services like Bitrefill is often 0%. Gift cards is one of the best ways to use crypto to pay for something in a pretty direct manner.


There's a ton of KYC-free exchanges and swapping services for XMR that makes cashing out BTC relatively painless but if you're not interested in looking for them, you'll never find them.

The fact that you have to resort to gift cards and so on just shows that the niche cases for XMR are very limited to small amounts basically. So if you are XMR rich... then what? you cannot improve your life quality. You have valuable 0's and 1's, but that's about it. You need a friendly jurisdiction to convert this into tangible things without ending up in jail.

Bitcoin provides a lot more leverage with governments since it's not "anonymous by default". And thats for now. I wonder what governments will think of Bitcoin in 10 years. If they end up banning it all, there will probably be an huge black market that has replaced the ban on physical cash, as well as some land distant jurisdictions in which you can fly and establish your finances which will be wiling to operate with BTC derived fortunes. Other than that, I think all cryptos are going to be in trouble in most mainstream countries in the future.

As far as Chipmixer, not sure who runs the service but probably everything is hosted somewhere safe from regulations that could have an impact on it and he remains anonymous. If he has everything set on point it will be difficult for them to get it done. Max they could do right now is probably block it ISP wise but anyone that uses Chipmixer already uses Tor/VPN by default so no one will even notice.


Agreed, but using protonmail, Tor or even Tails, is not at the same level as using XMR. At the end of the day, the number 1 target for governments is tax evaders, this seems clear to me and I think to anyone that has some life experience. They want their cut and that's how it is. If you go into an exchange and do some crypto stuff that has XMR in the mix to boot, this will raise more alarms than the other examples you provided.

i just remember this CZ fellow being in the news and I wasn't wrong:

https://u.today/binance-suffers-40-mln-hack-crypto-community-outraged-after-cz-suggested-bitcoin-rollback-to
https://www.finder.com.au/cz-says-binance-is-considering-a-bitcoin-rollback-to-recover-stolen-btc

why is CZ's money more important to an extent that rolling back the blockchain is a possibility but when someone else loses their money it's not? CZ is more important so Bitcoin miners should bow down to him?


Just visit the two websites I posted for you. Then you don't have to waste time reading through his tweets or listening to his "Ask me anything" although one question does come to mind. Why are you so important that your transactions should be rolled back?


ok franky thanks for the lesson in finance and how financial institutiions flag accounts. i learned something.


the reason, if any, that i don't like fiat  has nothing to do with "too many rules". maybe it is for some people. the issue i have with it is how the government can just print more of it out of thin air. which leads to inflation and my money being worth less. while employers don't increase their pay at a similar rate... that type of thing. and of course you get paid in fiat. 

then use a DEX. or don't use crypto? just stick with fiat.

This might be off the topic, however, I reckon it will be very relevant for the people who hold cryptocoins and NFTs. A known whale in the NFTspace has also been hacked and much of his coins and valuable bluechip NFTs were stolen. This person however appears to not have the technical competency of a bitcoin developer hehe.

Last night my entire digital livelihood was violated.

Every account connected to me both personally and professionally was hacked and used to hurt others.

Less importantly, I lost a life changing amount of my net worth

Source https://mobile.twitter.com/nft_god/status/1614442000958324739



We can learn from the mistake of others hehehe.

your gripe about the "mention re-org/roll-back"..
before sweating under the collar or stressing yourself out anymore beyond today(its not healthy for you).. check it out. it was social drama of mis-quoting. which led to maybe 8 hours of social drama before being squashed(in reality)..
a re-org didnt happen and if you listened to the whole AMA you would hear more then you are stressing yourself over.
CZ didnt come up with the idea and same day CZ said he understands implications and same day said it wasnt happening..
and so you should, knowing all real quotes..  not be 4 years later having a gripe over a non event.
however by taking some out of date misquoted social media of other people quotes, not involved in that days AMA as your source, where you instead of finding the source AMA and same day tweets.. you dont have the full context of the true events as they played out. and that is causing you 4 years after such social media drama to still be emotional about a non-event.. based not on CZ actual words but some other persons interpretations which you took as gospel

secondly.
finances/currency are not the same laws as property.
if you can learn the differences you will know that under the bank secrecy act. currency has no privacy compared to property.
bitcoins main issue was being legally recognised as "currency" in ~2014 instead of its "property" characteristic in 2009-2014
it was that categorisation pivot that allowed in regulation and thus supervision of funds entering businesses

..
as for the "part of it is probably discretionary as well. they could flag someone for any reason whatsoever."
the regulators have a easily google-able handbook/policy guide on their flags.

yes a business can add its own flags below the thresholds of needing to SAR report to authorities. but a regulated exchange cant just lock users away from withdrawing it unless certain legal processes are done. otherwise the business gets fined/prosecuted
yes businesses can secretly investigate and not inform its users of such at lower thresholds and using more indepth methods than a regulator prescribes.
and this again is related to the bank secrecy act that treats currency different than property

lastly.
you keep mentioning "fungible" like a yes or no. rather than a scale.

if a grocery store deposited its days takings into a bank where 1 bank note of 1000 is "dirty"/counterfeit not much is asked, no eyebrows are raised. if anything the store owner might be advised to double check bills are not counterfeit by upping their UV pen/light usage of checking bills, becasue the bank rejects the 1 note. costing the business 0.1% loss (yes banks do lose value if accepting counterfeits. and yes banks do check and penalise)
if high % of bank notes deposited are dirty/counterfeit. the authorities then get a report where the grocery store is being investigated for being a laundering "front" (plus the grocery store gets penalised for it by having its deposit rejected to that % amount)

there are rules involved in regards to money. there are thresholds
there are checks and validation processes done.

if you think that fiat is so open and free to use and unlimited.. why do you think people hate fiat and prefer bitcoin.. because fiat has too many rules.
if fiat didnt have rules there would be no need for bitcoin

bitcoin 2009-2014 had very very few rules if any legislatively..
bitcoin 2014-now has more legislative rules. which is where people are now hating all the crap about CEX monitoring users

i suppose but are we saying that is an acceptable thing? if it was possible to have it so that you can't trace bitcoin then wouldn't that be better?

that's because cash is fungible has a higher fungibility than bitcoin. so that's why they would let you carry your bitcoin across the boarder without any concern whatsoever.


and that's what no one wants. no one wants someone else having the upper hand on them, sitting in a judgement seat regarding their finances.

part of it is probably discretionary as well. they could flag someone for any reason whatsoever.


i'm not so sure you or i or capable of figuring it out all on our own franky that's why experts analyze these type of things:

The blockchain analytics firm ChainArgos, led by Jonathan Reiter and Patrick Tan, discovered that the Binance-Peg wallet on Ethereum, which was supposed to hold the stablecoins required to back all Binance-Peg BUSD, routinely held a lower balance than the amount of Binance-Peg BUSD circulating on Binance Smart Chain.

you can google that.



and my gripe is hearing CZ mentiion rolling back the blockchain as if that's something that would be acceptable in that type of situation. he shouldn't even have mentioned it. let him stick to BSC which has it's own "syncing" issues from genisys block, i hear.  

if that's all you did then you didn't do anything. there's alot more to it than just that....

you too!

ok to say it again
before hardware wallets were a thing. before export wallet was a thing.. (before terminology got redefined)
OG bitcoiners called an offline wallet (paper or airgapped)
they called a cold wallet a node on home computer(with internet to stay in sync and make payments online)
they called a hot wallet a node on public server

luke did not paper wallet nor have hardware wallet. he had keys on a node which was exposed, as it can be seen he was spending value of his wallet in september. it was not old coins from 2011. it was a utxo from 2022 that got spent in september, then the change returned to the wallet in september.. then later stolen at the new year

A cold wallet that is generated following the current security standards (generated on offline device, etc), cannot be hacked remotely.

The issue is that there's more information in the case discussed here. It was not a garden variety cold wallet, it might have probably been compromised at some point, plus also it was an old wallet.

That's how FUD works, yeah. And good luck hacking my paper wallet remotely. 

That was irony, man. Poor irony I guess if I have to explain it. 

Your information and suggestions truly suck BIG TIME, serveria.

I have nothing against hookers, Lambo and blow in the proper order of things... but there is some need for sustainability, too... or at least I would think.  If we are spending on hookers, lambo and blow, we should at least want to be able to spend to our heart's content for the duration of our lives, and I am not even suggesting to strive to make one's life shorter but instead attempting to at least get as much life out of your meat wagon as is feasible and possible while engaging in such consumptive activities for the duration of it or the remainder of it.

One of the BIGGER questions tends to be that a lot of folks seem to want to get to their passionate consumptive levels way too soon - which surely does not seem to be the lesson that the Luke JR case is showing us.

I mean there is no evidence that he was starting to spend too soon. .but he seemed to be acting like a squirrel trying to preserve his nuts and still unsure about whether he had gotten to such ability to consume state, yet.. and from my understanding he has 8 kids, so to the extent that he would be including his consumptive level with the 8 kids and the wifey, then surely he would be needing more nuts... yet surely philosophies are going to vary in terms of how much to share with the kids (or even with the wife) while still living.  I doubt that we have enough information about Luke regarding those matters, to the extent that they might be relevant to our discussion here...

And, actually for someone like Luke (family man type blah blah blah).. expensive real estate might well be his variation of hookers, lambos and blow... but part of the problem, is that he seems to have had delayed his ability to get to that stage because he inadequately preserved his nuts, including but not limited to seeming to presume that his security was good enough.. in spite of some supposed breaches that he had in recent months, too.. which kind of get's us back to the possibility that Luke may well have been going down the boat accident avenue.. so probably, if he ends up still having the nuts, he is going to still have to figure out how to acquire the expensive real estate without so much traceability, and I am not even sure that I want to go down that route.. which does end up getting me to concede more than I would like to concede to you in terms of the likelihood that hookers, lambos and blow are quite a bit more mobile and of less concern than expensive real estate, if the boating accident scenario were the actual motive (which really does not seem to be the prevailing thought pattern here.. even though if you think about it, Trace Mayer seems to have had purposefully blew himself up for potentially similar kinds of motivations in which seems to be part of the reason why many longer term bitcoiners do seem to have some motivations and connections related to wanting to play the boating accident card or some similar kind of blow up scenario).

I am starting to realize that as I write this post, I am starting to think that you may well be making more senses, serveria... in terms of what you had originally stated.. but I am still sticking to my guns... in terms of both the need to establish a decently large stash first and to consider that to be more important than just going straight out balls to the walls with the hookers, lambo and blow lifestyle.. which seemed to be part of the way that I was originally reading how you were framing the matter.

Even with 8 kids blah blah blah.. more than 200 BTC would have been a pretty good place to be.. so maybe this whole situation is just seeming strange in terms of how any of us might get to a sufficient state of BTC accumulation, and then how seriously we might consider the ways in which we maintain such stash, even if we might have made some mistakes in terms of how much we consider ourselves to be employing any of our BTC liquidation stages.. and of course, Luke is not really a very old guy (even though he has 8 kids), so maybe he was deferring gratification and still psychologically considering himself a nut stasher rather than a consumer because of his age and his considering himself to be a supporter and all of those kinds of ways of thinking.. maybe? maybe?  I would not claim to know... so I am starting to feel that I am waffling in terms of how much I was initially considering to criticize the contents of your post.

This is terrible news. I wonder how these hackers got a hold of his cold wallet addresses if they were so secure. I think besides reporting such eventuality to the local authorities, or maybe even FBI, he may also ask exchanges to freeze funds with relations to these addresses so they could be returned if things go well. Point taken, this just puts fear to the people of this industry coz if cold wallets can be hacked remotely, what else can't be right? Then again I am pretty positive he'll get the funds back somehow, long as he knows who to talk to and where to consult.

Frankly, initially I thought this was FUD/hijacked twitter account. I'm too lazy to scroll through 12 pages of this thread but I suspect it turned out this indeed happened and his stash is really gone? If so, what can I say? Another proof you don't have to save but rather spend it all on Lambos, hookers and blow while you can. Roughly 20 million? That'd be enough to live 1-2 years in luxury (without buying any expensive RE for sure). 

After seeing people who have been using "cold storage" in a way it was "going online only to send out transactions", my current experience tells that HW is the current "good enough" option for the masses. And the rest can set up a cold storage properly, hopefully better than Luke did.

"where do you store the paper" <-- If you ever had a seed to store, you can answer this yourself. And if you didn't, you should use the search feature.
And I am curious: what would you recommend then if not hardware wallets?

I see this as sure disaster

where do you store the paper
hardware made at hardware level with hardware level attacks.

Your at the mercy of a lot of people a very long supply chain that *know* you puting valuable there