To be fair to BitKey and one or two others, this attack doesn’t apply to Multisig wallets, anti-exfil doesn’t actually matter if you’re not doing single-sig.
So the acceptable-security hardware wallet list is BitKey, Jade, and BitBox. nostr:note1m80q3p6pfxl6elt7dcpu076fmcwjymz942z4esumm5ku3mrsz2lqanga9y
Hardware Wallets are devices designed to hold bearer assets which can be trivially stolen if you leak the private key(s). There’s many, many people involved in the manufacture of each hardware wallet, each of which might wish to make free money by backdooring the hardware wallet. For every other hardware wallet, you’re blindly trusting Amazon/UPS/five factories in China/the webserver you got the firmware from/etc/etc. Sure, most hardware wallets have tried to be robust against these attacks, but there’s frankly just not that much that can be done.
Wouldn’t it be nice if you didn’t have to trust the device at all, but rather an attacker would have to compromise *both* your hardware wallet and your computer? Well, we’ve had the tech to do this for many, many years! The fact that only two hardware wallets bothered to implement this boggles my mind. It’s impressive incompetence, bordering on maliciousness, honestly. nostr:note16748fqunfxq63y980gl7me3u7d6zklvg8tscg45fpfw2lhzpv05qw2l5y4
Stop using hardware wallets that don’t take security seriously (sadly, all of them except Jade and BitBox). This is a novel construction, but the class of attacks is very old.
A laptop purchased in person, immediately installing Linux without ever connecting it to the Internet is a much better way to store coin than hardware wallets. Which, frankly, is just embarrassing incompetence for the hardware wallet industry.
https://darkskippy.com/
They bothered to implement anti-exfil (provably random nonces). This means that a malicious firmware or even malicious hardware wallet can’t steal your coin! For every other hardware wallet, you’re blindly trusting Amazon/UPS/five factories in China/the webserver you got the firmware from/etc/etc. The idea that none of these parties have anyone working there who might want to go steal people’s coin is absurd, frankly.
Any hardware wallet could have implemented anti-exfil signing at any point in the last 5 or more years, with minimal/no UX change. The fact that none bothered is sheer incompetence bordering on maliciousness.
It’s the “custodial” requirement here that gets you no answer. Ignore that and there’s a few Breez SDK wallets, some LDK-node ones coming soon, plus Mutiny, Phoenix, etc. custodial wallets aren’t legal without KYC most places in the world…
Remember that there are likely to be many Bitcoin Whales in Nashville, making its prime target. Leave your keys at home. Assume your laptop will be backdoored if you leave it alone. Be aware.
No nostr:nevent1qqsg4a4teqs4vu8w08cc8562y54gvs96ktw3f2er7uhyy0mk3zlsrzqprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvqyf8wumn8ghj7mmxve3ksctfdch8qatzqyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqy28wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytn00p68ytnyv4mqdwsyl7
He dropped out a long time after the assassination attempt (in political time) - after the RNC and getting covid (which may well have him quite sick right now). He also dropped out at basically the last possible minute before the (now-delayed) online delegate voting for the formal Democratic nomination starts. The pressure for Biden to drop out got its loudest late last week, right before he dropped out.
For those impacted by the Swan news, I’m sorry. Layoffs suck when you did nothing don’t.
But, Spiral is still hiring for LDK engineer(s) as well as the “wizard” role!
apply@spiral.xyz
Meanwhile tons of bitcoiners are still frothing at the mouth for him after the news that he’s considering someone who hates Bitcoin for the role which impacts Bitcoin the most 🤦♂️
Then bitcoiners need to fundamentally change what they work on. Mining centralization is a joke, mints creating more custodial operations 🤦♂️…. People keep saying this but bitcoiners are not building like it’s true.
A lot of people talk about “attacks on bitcoin”, but they’re usually just people doing something you don’t like. In rare cases, though, these things can have severe consequences for the entire Bitcoin system.
This is what an attack on Bitcoin looks like https://github.com/rollkit/rollkit/issues/761#issuecomment-2195853303
They’re moaning about people having to make sure their site works with TLS? Seems like a weird complaint. My issue is that TLS is an overcomplicated beast of a protocol (okay somewhat better with 1.3, but even still), which is the enemy of security, we have like 100 “roots of trust” in the form of CAs, most of which have a long history of being terrible, it relies on too many pieces of an increasingly huge stack, etc….
You can also now use https://satsto.me which should give reasonable error messages (currently says “The server indicated the records we needed were not DNSSEC-authenticated” for the example name you gave).
Curious about this new BIP 353/Human Readable Names thing but don’t have a wallet that supports it yet? Want to see if you set it up right?
Head over to https://satsto.me/ to resolve them to legacy addresses!
It’s not just BOLT12, either, any reusable bitcoin addresses can go in there (but preferably ones that don’t cause on-chain address reuse)!
There’s absolutely no limit. Some hosting providers add arbitrary limits but even the entire Bitcoin header tree in DNS records running in BIND is like 1G of memory…
https://bitcoinheaders.net/
I have seen no performance issues hosting a few million records on RPis for https://bitcoinheaders.net/
But, BIP 353 does contemplate doing multiple users in a single wildcard record.
That’s a technical/encoding detail that’s not really relevant. In practice a TXT record is a blob of data. Whether it’s encoded as multiple blobs or not doesn’t matter, things work just fine :)
Suggesting that Liberals (not liberals) have nothing to like about Bitcoin is short-sighted and lacks creativity. There have been literal books written on this topic.
If you think the American Red Team are pro-freedom and the American Blue Team are anti-freedom you may want to get checked for brain worms. Neither is even remotely close to that consistent and both are pro- or anti-freedom on various specific issues. Bitcoin can absolutely speak to both of the American partisan teams depending on which features and groups of people you focus on.
Is there any more info available here? I’m somewhat surprised to hear (and Google doesn’t seem to have any results for) a TLD seizing a domain outright. I could see a shitty registrar (GoDaddy or whatever) doing so, however.
Ah, yea, okay, .xyz gets used by spammers a *ton* so I think they did this to fix their spam problem (lots of people just block *.xyz these days), but what a terrible idea…
It’s always how slow CI is, but somehow when I run it on an RPi it still never fails. I struggle to understand where GitHub gets machines as slow as Actions runners, but I guess we get what we pay for.
Is there a jurisdiction where a bank could run a mint? I’d think operating a mint clearly violates AML regulations in every reasonable jurisdiction in the world.
Right, this isn’t buy-and-withdraw, this is operating a server that enables people to exchange funds while remaining wholly custodial…. Let’s not get excited, this cannot scale without jail :(
Sure, creative lawyers are great, but my note was this doesn’t scale, not that it can’t be done. After a certain scale creative reinterpretations of the law results in jail time :(
I’m not convinced any of the options “opened” by CTV are going to hugely move the needle, honestly. There’s some marginal gains to lightning and mayybbeee timeout trees are compelling, but there’s big regulatory questions there and the trust model isn’t as great :/
If we want ecash to have any hope of working out, we need anonymous mints, but anonymous mints are likely to get stolen. Instead, we need anonymous mints that are operated by one of N well-known and trusted parties. Mint operator(s) should take N public keys known to be from N well-known and trusted persons in the bitcoin space, then create ring sig(s) across those N to reveal that they are one of those N parties, but not which one.
Given many long-timers at one point or another had public donation addresses or some other key that is known to be theirs, this should actually be relatively doable, just don’t put too much money in the mint :)
What if (though no specific proposal I’m aware of does) something were to enable that while also offering some great bitcoin scaling solution that allows for fast noncustodial transactions without regulatory questions or onboarding fees?
Oddbean new post about login | logout
Notes by matt | export
I am sometimes haunted by the phrase I heard log ago from Eben Moglen: It's wrong to be r...