Bitcoin Forum

This article made my day just by reading its title. The worst part that I really liked is when they said that its just pure marketing and they will never pay a bounty. Kudos to those individuals who tried to measure the security of this unhackable bitcoin wallet. ;D.. You may never receive a bounty from them but you have the bragging rights to all crypto enthusiasts.

Do you think this bitcoin wallet will still be used by anyone of us? What do you think about this article? Share me your thoughts guys. I bet you'll laugh as well on this one.

https://www.ccn.com/mcafees-unhackable-bitcoin-wallet-allegedly-hacked/

Yea I saw that a couple hour ago. This raises questions as to whether other hardware wallets are as safe as their creators are claiming. If you ask anybody on the forum most will tell you that hardware wallets are the safest way to store your coins. I've seen dozens of similar threads about security and at least 90% of the answers were "buy a hardware wallet".
If they want to keep the company they should pay the 250k prize. Claiming the wallet is unhackable is fine, it's still in the early stage, but not paying the bounty will bury them. 

Let see if he coughs up the money. :)

I doubt that claim of CCN. Read the tweet below,

https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/1025066147694174215?s=19

This challenge immediately caught my attention and I am keeping the updates as well. No prominent claim of money hacked not yet been published. But it is too early to say anything and we should not underestimate the power and knowledge of the hackers. Especially when the bounty is too tempting!

Cue screeds from them discussing what constitutes a hack and what doesn't. I will guess they'll purely nominate the removal of money from a wallet created by this device as a successful hack which may indeed be a lot harder than just cracking hardware or software.

But no one should ever make an 'un' claim about anything, especially something as closely watched and complex as crypto software. If I were him I would've just said 'this wallet is lovely. I'd like you to buy one'.

Instead he's going to have to commit to defending a position that many people will take great delight in picking apart from multiple angles.

That's what you get for calling something "unhackable"...


Of course they aren't. They may be safe based on a limited understanding of the threat surface, but that's all. Things like Meltdown and Spectre really put into perspective just how little we might know about critical vulnerabilities in micro-processors.


I often respond to these suggestions when I see them, and urge people not to dump all funds on a hardware wallet. It's fine for day-to-day spending and limited storage. But it's not cold storage. And as a matter of practicality, it's very dumb to store all funds in one wallet, which is what many people apparently do.

Nothing is impossible. It is improbable that there is a perfect system or program to protect us. There will always be loop holes or even a breach of security no matter how small the chances are or the options are. There's a saying that; If there's a will there's a way.

I am not a smart person in IT. But I've heard the phrase "No system is safe". And I'm sure they (hackers) are also working hard to hack every data and website. With the hackers, website system developers and application systems can take this as a lesson for future systems they develop can be stronger than the threat of hackers.

They should really turn damage control on, pay up the bounty and if they are 100% sure about the whole root/access to funds stuff only then they should issue a second challenge based exactly on this.

Suddenly dropping the bounty from 250 000 to 10 000 smells fishy to me, it looks to me like they want to avoid larger groups with more resources that would be tempted by a 1/4 million prize.

Anyhow...
https://www.csoonline.com/article/3294619/security/bounty-for-hacking-the-unhackable-bitfi-wallet-jumps-from-100k-to-250k.html


They are probably done for.

the main point to remember is that there is no 100% safe anywhere. even an encrypted paper wallet is not 100% safe. but for a lazy newbie who doesn't know what a clean computer is, how to run linux for instance, how to create a paper wallet and doesn't want to go through the long process of learning and then doing it, the hardware wallets are the best.


he will probably cough it up after he ate his own dick on TV ;)

They won't pay. As with most things associated with the serial scammer McAfee, it was all show and no substance. The bounty was a marketing ploy only - they had no intention of ever paying.



Some hardware wallets (like Ledger or Trezor) are the best. Definitely not this Bitfi scam.

Congrats to the guys who hacked the 'unhackable' wallet  ;D.
On the other hand, why would you use this hardware wallet as Bitfi seems to be suspious and shady.

Any software has errors. All are made by humans!
To be safe, you should secretly personalize your personal information into other credentials

which wallet did he use?

I'm quite perplexed at this. I'm sure hackers deliberately decided to pry the wallet using the back door just to prove that his name doesn't matter in the bit coin affair. I equally feel sorry for him because this is a loss not just to him but to potential bitcoin enthusiast who may hold valuable assets in their wallets. What's more? If this can happen to him, it could become anyone else's lot. Crypto therefore is still prone to attacks because of bugs or flaws.

I follow John McAfee like for his everyday tweets,fine they hacked but could not get the money out of the wallet,my question is ?what then did they hack..its like opening a door to steal with all struggles and getting in,you can't carry anything..hhmm waist of talent..

In my opinion, this is definitely NOT fine.
It is NOT a hardware wallet. It does NOT have any secure element. It does NOT have any positive features a 'real' hardware wallet has.

This is just a small chipset with an implemented algorithm to derive private keys from a 'salted' password. Effectively a brain wallet.


The whole concept IS and WILL be unsafe. You can't repair a concept whose whole approach is wrong.

Seriously speaking if anyone does something just cause McAfee promoted it deserves whats coming to him. By now everyone knows that McAfee would promote anything that he is paid for even if it is a scam. Also thinking that something is unhackable would be wrong and there is almost always a security hole.

I'm sure he won't. As what has been said that its all just a marketing stunt.
John has been destroying his credibility lately. He has already made so much speculations about bitcoin and I just find it so ridiculous that most of them are in full exaggeration.

lmao. I wonder if he still has a dick to go on live TV. The statement he made created a challenge to the hacker community in general. The bounty should be given out to save their unhackable wallet's future as well as their reputation.

Thanks for the merit anyways. If not for McAfee's unhackable wallet I'd be stuck with 15 merits. Way to go till I go next rank.

Who knows what he will do when he becomes a President? :D

Although McAfee's CEO stated their Bitcoin wallet can not be hacked, however, the fact that no security software can be completely undetected by hackers. The hackers are really very talented and do the impossible. The problem may be McAfee's has been subjected to the changes and development of malicious software. That was a fatal mistake.

in this cyber world, nothing is Un-Hackable unless that stays offline, lol.

While it is true that keeping electronic devices offline does increase the security a lot, it does not automatically mean that it is unhackable.

Even an offline system does leak information. Whether in form of processing time, electromagnetic fields, etc.. is another question.
But these side-channel attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-channel_attack) are not pure theory. Successful attacks are definitely a possibility.


AES, for example, can be attacked through cache-timing. The reason for this is that the AES algorithm does use secret data as the index of an array.
Since the access time of an element of an array is dependent on the index, this leads to a possible scenario where an malicious actor could try to decrease the search space a lot.
This attack requires physical access to the machine (or an identical copy of the machine) and access to the same AES implementation.

This shows that even an offline system can be hacked. This depends on a lot of factors.
Such an attack might only happen if someone is targeting you and is ready to spend a lot of resources.


IMO nothing really is unhackable. It all depends on the circumstances.

Did the hacker gain access to the  wallet content. I think he basically challenged the would be hacker to proof he hacked the wallet by transfering its cryptocurreny. He even went on to increase the rewards. I will be surprised if the wallet was really hacked with all the drama.

Ive read an article about this but I thought its just a myth right now

Every hardware wallet have its own security measures. So far Ledger and Trezor has never been hacked or if there is an issue, they treat it very seriously and fix it no matter how slight the issue is. I believe it is still safe than having an online wallet.

Just stick to Ledger and Trezor, so far they have been proved as the most secure. I don't know how safe is technology that other harware wallets are based on.
Of course, there is no 100% safety guarantee but still so far there wasn't any security incident related to those wallets and I trust them the most. Everything else is risky and you have to accept that. Especialy avoid online wallets.

Trezor is great, ledger is so so given they dont have the same level of security such as (unlimited password access points).

To say something is unhackable is a bold statement and a very silly thing to say. Maybe they found the backdoor which had been planted that was suppose to be used by McAfee himself to extract everyones coins after they came in thinking its "unhackable" lol.

If this could happen to him, it could become a lot of anyone else. In my opinion, this is definitely not good. It does NOT have any positive features that a 'real' hardware wallet has. The effect is a brain wallet. You can not fix a concept where its whole approach is wrong.

There is no such a thing such as unhackable. Everything which are connected with the internet or LAN, can be easily hacked.

Any software has errors. To be safe, you should secretly personalize your personal information into other login information. I firmly believe that the hackers decided to put the wallet by using the back door just to prove that his name was not important in the little coin. What else? Crypto is therefore vulnerable to errors or errors. They hacked open a door to steal all the struggles and into impossible to do anything. By now everyone knows that McAfee will promote anything that he gets paid regardless of whether it is a scam. Who knows what he will do when he becomes President?