Is your bitcoin safe in cold wallet?

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: johnyj on January 11, 2016, 04:45:32 PM

Quote from: Amph on December 15, 2015, 04:57:04 AM

Quote from: johnyj on December 14, 2015, 02:16:18 PM

Quote from: Amph on December 14, 2015, 02:08:34 PM

so this is just a bunch of silly no-sense, because in th remote case this is true(which is not) it would not benefit the hacker also, because they would lost everything too, simple logic

so it would be utterly stupid from their point of view to destroy their own "hacked profit"....

What if they only steal Satoshi's one million coins, not any one else's? That is a large enough motivation to push out such a change

but i would not lost the coin, but only the value in this case, either way damaging bitcoin like that when you have a fortune that can be worth more in the future, still look very stupid to me

whoever has bitcoin should support if because by supporting it he can increase the value of his coins, by damaging it, he just damaged his fortune at the end

this assuming that the consensus of 90%+(faik it's not 51%), is in favor of a change that can put a risk everyone else...

Not if a hacker who just want to steal some coin and sell them. The motivation becomes increasingly large when bitcoin price rise another several times

how much an hacker can steal, to put some damage he need a very good amount, look at the amount that was stolen from bitstamp, he didn't do much and they were 20k btc

even with 100k the market will recover more stronger, because the value at which the hacker will dump, it will only strengthen it

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: Amph on December 15, 2015, 04:57:04 AM

Quote from: johnyj on December 14, 2015, 02:16:18 PM

Quote from: Amph on December 14, 2015, 02:08:34 PM

so this is just a bunch of silly no-sense, because in th remote case this is true(which is not) it would not benefit the hacker also, because they would lost everything too, simple logic

so it would be utterly stupid from their point of view to destroy their own "hacked profit"....

What if they only steal Satoshi's one million coins, not any one else's? That is a large enough motivation to push out such a change

but i would not lost the coin, but only the value in this case, either way damaging bitcoin like that when you have a fortune that can be worth more in the future, still look very stupid to me

whoever has bitcoin should support if because by supporting it he can increase the value of his coins, by damaging it, he just damaged his fortune at the end

this assuming that the consensus of 90%+(faik it's not 51%), is in favor of a change that can put a risk everyone else...

Not if a hacker who just want to steal some coin and sell them. The motivation becomes increasingly large when bitcoin price rise another several times

randy8777

legendary

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Quote from: sahliano on January 08, 2016, 06:07:28 PM

i don't use cold wallet because i don't have much to be afraid for loosing it i think i will use it when i get some heavy stuff

amounts that you right now consider not to be worth that much can be worth a lot in the future. if you do plan to hold your coins for the long term, then definitely store them offline.

sahliano

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

i don't use cold wallet because i don't have much to be afraid for loosing it i think i will use it when i get some heavy stuff

AtheistAKASaneBrain

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 509

Quote from: johnyj on December 14, 2015, 03:14:56 PM

Quote from: pereira4 on December 14, 2015, 03:01:36 PM

Quote from: johnyj on December 14, 2015, 01:28:20 PM

Quote from: helloeverybody on December 14, 2015, 01:20:25 PM

I wouldnt worry about this at all. Something like this would be hard to sneak in and it would take multiple devs to manage it. Id say its a non issue.

Then why is there an XT version out there? Does this mean these ABC guys are more trust worthy than those XYZ guys? What is the criteria to judge? And how do you make sure you are not biased

Because the XT guys have tried to centralize Bitcoin by doing a ridiculously big blocksize increase and they couldn't find a consensus with devs and most people aren't agreeing with that, therefore they freely started their own thing as Bitcoin XT. I don't really see what you are trying to say in the OP, all those risks have already been considered and are under consideration.

XT is too radical thus barely can get some agreement, but the proposal I see in segregated witness is more radical than that, he promote to change the whole bitcoin architecture, do you think that is under consideration? Someone already pointed out increased sybil attack risk in SWclient, check Lauda's thread here
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13227840

Sigwit can be deployed in a soft fork, it's a way less risk than raising the blocksize. There aren't any real serious risks, otherwise Core would not consider it since the Core devs are the most conservative out there. You are still free to check the code since it's all open source. Also in the case an XT disaster happened (hard fork consensus is actually reached) no one loses coins because your coins would automatically show up on the new chain. But as pointed before no one cares about XT anymore so it's not an issue.

ausbit

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1019

Quote from: sishendaoye on December 15, 2015, 07:01:28 AM

What about trezor that is a good thing right to save or hold your bitcoins.
Oh well I don't know that much I am still learning about bitcoins.

Bitcoins is safe in cold wallet but if we show or sometimes it happens, our system is open and some one is watching that time its really dangerous, because in this world we should not trust anyone.

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

I strongly believe nobody invested into Bitcoin now, would do something like this to "cut their own face" The consensus point will never be reached, if people know that they would

lose their coins. You will see nodes pop up like mushrooms to counter such a fork. This is the foundation of this technology and these miners and mining farms know that. You would

need a considerable amount of money to threaten Bitcoin consensus. Roll Eyes

sishendaoye

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

What about trezor that is a good thing right to save or hold your bitcoins.
Oh well I don't know that much I am still learning about bitcoins.

Mickeyb

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Move On !!!!!!

Quote from: Slark on December 15, 2015, 05:08:46 AM

Wait, so it all mean that if I keep my Bitcoin stored offline in a cold wallet. Then in the future, when bitcoin's protocol would change or bitcoin will be hard forked or other ground breaking changes will happen I could potentially lose access to my coins? I feel that backward compatibility should be first law of bitcoin guaranteed by devs.

Everything will always be accessible, don't worry about it! Devs are not building some joke currency here, we are building a serious payment platform. Of course that the backward compatibility is the first thing that is guaranteed!

bitcoin-hunter

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

That is why I have a cold wallet and my normal wallet that I use daily. So in the future I don't lose all my money.
With me I like bitcoins but for now I just do 25% of my income to bitcoins. So that I will be safe.

LuckyYOU

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

I read through this thread and you do got some valuable points here but shouldn't it have happened by now if it was really that easy?
Investing into bitcoin comes with certain risks, it's the risks you take and you're just going to deal with the consequences when it comes down to certain issues.

Slark

legendary

Activity: 1862

Merit: 1004

Wait, so it all mean that if I keep my Bitcoin stored offline in a cold wallet. Then in the future, when bitcoin's protocol would change or bitcoin will be hard forked or other ground breaking changes will happen I could potentially lose access to my coins? I feel that backward compatibility should be first law of bitcoin guaranteed by devs.

Rizky Aditya

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

I keep some of my Bitcoin in a cold wallet. And I also keep some in a hot wallet that I use daily to make normal transactions like online shopping.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: johnyj on December 14, 2015, 02:16:18 PM

Quote from: Amph on December 14, 2015, 02:08:34 PM

so this is just a bunch of silly no-sense, because in th remote case this is true(which is not) it would not benefit the hacker also, because they would lost everything too, simple logic

so it would be utterly stupid from their point of view to destroy their own "hacked profit"....

What if they only steal Satoshi's one million coins, not any one else's? That is a large enough motivation to push out such a change

but i would not lost the coin, but only the value in this case, either way damaging bitcoin like that when you have a fortune that can be worth more in the future, still look very stupid to me

whoever has bitcoin should support it, because by supporting it he can increase the value of his coins, by damaging it, he just damaged his fortune at the end

this assuming that the consensus of 90%+(afaik it's not 51%), is in favor of a change that can put a risk everyone else...

Meuh6879

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

XT can't change the world because ... they don't provide changelog. Roll Eyes

DrLove2048

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Everything has a risk associated with it... Just do the best you can to protect yourself from that risk and that's about all you can do.

Mickeyb

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Move On !!!!!!

With all due respect to the OP, I have read through this whole thread and I think there is quite a lot overreacting here by your side! I don't think something like this as you propose will happen to Bitcoin ever. We are much more serious than this!

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 4794

Quote from: johnyj on December 14, 2015, 03:03:54 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on December 14, 2015, 02:50:00 PM

Then it isn't a soft fork, and it isn't backward compatible. The network splits into "original bitcoin" and "new protocol trying to call itself bitcoin". The only way that the new protocol can "win" is to convince nearly everyone (exchanges, merchants, consumers, investors, etc) to use their new "stealCoin" protocol instead of the secure "Bitcoin" protocol.

You can check Pieter's segregated witness proposal video here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fst1IK_mrng#t=36m

It is a large change to bitcoin protocol (in fact changed pretty much everything in bitcoin) but still can be implemented using a soft fork, means backward compatible. I'm still scratching my head of how this is possible, but I guess it is using a technology similar to master coin, they can make the new design totally invisible to the old client, maybe embedded some key data in some trivial field, so the old client feels that nothing has changed

Don't have time to watch the video right now. I'll try and watch it tonight. However, if it is completely backward compatible with the existing protocol, then it isn't possible to steal Satoshi's (or anyone else's) bitcoins with that implementation.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: pereira4 on December 14, 2015, 03:01:36 PM

Quote from: johnyj on December 14, 2015, 01:28:20 PM

Quote from: helloeverybody on December 14, 2015, 01:20:25 PM

I wouldnt worry about this at all. Something like this would be hard to sneak in and it would take multiple devs to manage it. Id say its a non issue.

Then why is there an XT version out there? Does this mean these ABC guys are more trust worthy than those XYZ guys? What is the criteria to judge? And how do you make sure you are not biased

Because the XT guys have tried to centralize Bitcoin by doing a ridiculously big blocksize increase and they couldn't find a consensus with devs and most people aren't agreeing with that, therefore they freely started their own thing as Bitcoin XT. I don't really see what you are trying to say in the OP, all those risks have already been considered and are under consideration.

XT is too radical thus barely can get some agreement, but the proposal I see in segregated witness is more radical than that, he promote to change the whole bitcoin architecture, do you think that is under consideration? Someone already pointed out increased sybil attack risk in SWclient, check Lauda's thread here
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13227840

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: DannyHamilton on December 14, 2015, 02:50:00 PM

Then it isn't a soft fork, and it isn't backward compatible. The network splits into "original bitcoin" and "new protocol trying to call itself bitcoin". The only way that the new protocol can "win" is to convince nearly everyone (exchanges, merchants, consumers, investors, etc) to use their new "stealCoin" protocol instead of the secure "Bitcoin" protocol.

You can check Pieter's segregated witness proposal video here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fst1IK_mrng#t=36m

It is a large change to bitcoin protocol (in fact changed pretty much everything in bitcoin) but still can be implemented using a soft fork, means backward compatible. I'm still scratching my head of how this is possible, but I guess it is using a technology similar to master coin, they can make the new design totally invisible to the old client, maybe embedded some key data in some trivial field, so the old client feels that nothing has changed

Topic: Is your bitcoin safe in cold wallet? (Read 1371 times)