Yes I bailed on multibit months ago. It is just too flawed and got tired of it losing my BTC, even though I eventually recovered it.
It happened more than once? Are you just trolling or is this for real?
Topic: We should stop recommending Multibit on bitcoin.org, NOW (Read 3250 times)
It happened more than once? Are you just trolling or is this for real?
Yes I bailed on multibit months ago. It is just too flawed and got tired of it losing my BTC, even though I eventually recovered it.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
A mobile device could potentially be stolen/lost, even if the point of the theft of the device is not to steal the bitcoin they would be significant risk.
Online wallets carry their own risk that is separate from using MultiBit in this manner. More risk? I am not sure
Everything in life has a risk. Even if someone secures their bitcoins in the most effective way, they can't rule out that they might have an accident tomorrow, leaving the coins unspendable if only they know about how to retrieve them (passwords, cold storage location, etc).Online wallets carry their own risk that is separate from using MultiBit in this manner. More risk? I am not sure
The problem with online wallets is when they actually know your private keys. They could one day just decide to spend them without your consent. As far as I know, Blockchain.info encrypts the keys so that they are only known in the browser at the time the user logs in, and never by Blockchain.info themselves.
If you are storing _serious_ amounts of money then I'd suggest using an offline solution such as Armory rather than MultiBit
Why is Armory better in this case? I think R2D221 is right - it's about knowing the risks of the different wallet solutions.
For example, desktop wallets can all be compromised by malware and a key logger (which is why we want to support Trezor in MBHD as that's a tougher target for attackers to compromise).
If you are storing _serious_ amounts of money then I'd suggest using an offline solution such as Armory rather than MultiBit and having a dedicated computer with the offline data that is ONLY used for that.
For example, desktop wallets can all be compromised by malware and a key logger (which is why we want to support Trezor in MBHD as that's a tougher target for attackers to compromise).
If you are storing _serious_ amounts of money then I'd suggest using an offline solution such as Armory rather than MultiBit and having a dedicated computer with the offline data that is ONLY used for that.
Well if I had "serious" amounts of money, I wouldn't want to trust my keys to potential hardware failure. So I have a printout of my keys which I can then use to import to any wallet I feel like using.
I really feel like this is the most "secure" solution. Having a couple of hard-copies of your keys means they're safe from online theives, and let's be honest, even if you had a problem with burglary, it's unlikely that the burglers are going to recognize the value of a bitcoin private key even if they do run across the paper, they are looking for other types of stuff.
I think R2D221 is right - it's about knowing the risks of the different wallet solutions.
For example, desktop wallets can all be compromised by malware and a key logger (which is why we want to support Trezor in MBHD as that's a tougher target for attackers to compromise).
If you are storing _serious_ amounts of money then I'd suggest using an offline solution such as Armory rather than MultiBit and having a dedicated computer with the offline data that is ONLY used for that.
For example, desktop wallets can all be compromised by malware and a key logger (which is why we want to support Trezor in MBHD as that's a tougher target for attackers to compromise).
If you are storing _serious_ amounts of money then I'd suggest using an offline solution such as Armory rather than MultiBit and having a dedicated computer with the offline data that is ONLY used for that.
A mobile device could potentially be stolen/lost, even if the point of the theft of the device is not to steal the bitcoin they would be significant risk.
Online wallets carry their own risk that is separate from using MultiBit in this manner. More risk? I am not sure
Everything in life has a risk. Even if someone secures their bitcoins in the most effective way, they can't rule out that they might have an accident tomorrow, leaving the coins unspendable if only they know about how to retrieve them (passwords, cold storage location, etc).Online wallets carry their own risk that is separate from using MultiBit in this manner. More risk? I am not sure
The problem with online wallets is when they actually know your private keys. They could one day just decide to spend them without your consent. As far as I know, Blockchain.info encrypts the keys so that they are only known in the browser at the time the user logs in, and never by Blockchain.info themselves.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
What about a person who actually needs to potentially spend his bitcoin from two (or more computers) but has no real way of knowing in advance when they would need this.
As much as all of us would like to use our MultiBit as much as possible, I guess I'd suggest this situation might better be handled by a secure online wallet -- which would hold whatever balance was needed in both or all locations. Or, one could carry his/her single MultiBit wallet on a portable device to carry with them.A mobile device could potentially be stolen/lost, even if the point of the theft of the device is not to steal the bitcoin they would be significant risk.
Online wallets carry their own risk that is separate from using MultiBit in this manner. More risk? I am not sure
What's the precarious part? I don't fully understand.
I have my wallet in an encrypted text file that i have on a flash stick. I also have that file decrypted and printed on paper as a back up. So, I can decrypt the wallet file and then import it. Anyway, as far as i can tell, even if the import goes wrong on a particular wallet software, I can just try again with better software or double check the installation or something. I'm sure there's something I'm missing.
From the dictionary: Precarious..I have my wallet in an encrypted text file that i have on a flash stick. I also have that file decrypted and printed on paper as a back up. So, I can decrypt the wallet file and then import it. Anyway, as far as i can tell, even if the import goes wrong on a particular wallet software, I can just try again with better software or double check the installation or something. I'm sure there's something I'm missing.
a : dependent on chance circumstances, unknown conditions, or uncertain developments
b : characterized by a lack of security or stability that threatens with danger
You might be fine, sed -- though that decrypted paper backup is a point of risk. You're possibly having to back it up often [at least every time to add coin to the wallet], and juggling/keeping track of/disposing of decrypted paper files introduces some real risk in the equation.
But again.. just stating an opinion here.. I think most users would be better served sending coins from one wallet to another via the blockchain, rather than doing the export/import of keys procedure for coin transfers.
What about a person who actually needs to potentially spend his bitcoin from two (or more computers) but has no real way of knowing in advance when they would need this.
As much as all of us would like to use our MultiBit as much as possible, I guess I'd suggest this situation might better be handled by a secure online wallet -- which would hold whatever balance was needed in both or all locations. Or, one could carry his/her single MultiBit wallet on a portable device to carry with them. sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
IMHO, passing keys around from an installation on one computer to another, or one wallet to another, is always more precarious than sending coins from one wallet to another via the blockchain. I would never import a key except for disaster recovery. It's too inexpensive to send balances over the blockchain, and much less fraught with potential problems. A little paid in transaction fees goes a long way toward peace of mind.
What about a person who actually needs to potentially spend his bitcoin from two (or more computers) but has no real way of knowing in advance when they would need this.
An example of this would be someone who owns a small business and could have to send coins from home or from the office at any given time. It would be cheap to send coins from one address to another one time but this cost would add up if this had to be repeated every day 2 (or more times per day).
IMHO, passing keys around from an installation on one computer to another, or one wallet to another, is always more precarious than sending coins from one wallet to another via the blockchain. I would never import a key except for disaster recovery. It's too inexpensive to send balances over the blockchain, and much less fraught with potential problems. A little paid in transaction fees goes a long way toward peace of mind.
What's the precarious part? I don't fully understand.
I have my wallet in an encrypted text file that i have on a flash stick. I also have that file decrypted and printed on paper as a back up. So, I can decrypt the wallet file and then import it. Anyway, as far as i can tell, even if the import goes wrong on a particular wallet software, I can just try again with better software or double check the installation or something. I'm sure there's something I'm missing.
IMHO, passing keys around from an installation on one computer to another, or one wallet to another, is always more precarious than sending coins from one wallet to another via the blockchain. I would never import a key except for disaster recovery. It's too inexpensive to send balances over the blockchain, and much less fraught with potential problems. A little paid in transaction fees goes a long way toward peace of mind.
The bug was related to incorrectly importing Blockchain.info keys. If you have never imported anything then you have nothing to worry about. Also, it was fixed in the latest release.
I see, well I do often import my keys. That is, from time to time I install multibit or another wallet on a computer and import my keys to do transactions. I'm going to be sure to update my multibit before I use any old installs. Also, looking through that reddit, i wondered if it was because the op created like 500keypairs before using them, maybe filling some presized array, idk.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
I've definitely used multibit quite a bit without issue. I also have my keys printed out and stored in a safe place. I need to look through that reddit, but what's not clear to me is:
1) is the bug something that 'eats your coin' as in sends it so some null address or something? or does it just corrupt your wallet, etc? If the latter, I'm not so worried since I have backups of all the keys.
2) is this resolved? If it is, can OP modify the thread name, it's kinda alarmist to leave it up if there's not a current issue anymore.
1) is the bug something that 'eats your coin' as in sends it so some null address or something? or does it just corrupt your wallet, etc? If the latter, I'm not so worried since I have backups of all the keys.
2) is this resolved? If it is, can OP modify the thread name, it's kinda alarmist to leave it up if there's not a current issue anymore.
According to the release notes the issue has been resolved.
The bug was related to incorrectly importing Blockchain.info keys. If you have never imported anything then you have nothing to worry about. Also, it was fixed in the latest release.
I've definitely used multibit quite a bit without issue. I also have my keys printed out and stored in a safe place. I need to look through that reddit, but what's not clear to me is:
1) is the bug something that 'eats your coin' as in sends it so some null address or something? or does it just corrupt your wallet, etc? If the latter, I'm not so worried since I have backups of all the keys.
2) is this resolved? If it is, can OP modify the thread name, it's kinda alarmist to leave it up if there's not a current issue anymore.
1) is the bug something that 'eats your coin' as in sends it so some null address or something? or does it just corrupt your wallet, etc? If the latter, I'm not so worried since I have backups of all the keys.
2) is this resolved? If it is, can OP modify the thread name, it's kinda alarmist to leave it up if there's not a current issue anymore.
Because this is a 2 months' old thread and may be the bug was fixed. Besides, the bug doesn't happen all the time.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
Had 2 wallets in Multibit, sent coins from the 1st to the 2nd.
Now half of the coins have disappeared.
And I can tell its gonna be a nightmare to get help from the dev.
Back to Electrum, after a 7k loss
Could you post some kind of supporting evidence?Now half of the coins have disappeared.
And I can tell its gonna be a nightmare to get help from the dev.
Back to Electrum, after a 7k loss
I have transferred coins within a wallet on Multibit before, it looked weird on the transaction history but did not have any issues with the change address.
Had 2 wallets in Multibit, sent coins from the 1st to the 2nd.
Now half of the coins have disappeared.
And I can tell its gonna be a nightmare to get help from the dev.
Back to Electrum, after a 7k loss
Could you post some kind of supporting evidence? Now half of the coins have disappeared.
And I can tell its gonna be a nightmare to get help from the dev.
Back to Electrum, after a 7k loss
Jump to: