The odds could be good actually.

The nature of bitcoins make them unbelievably attractive to hackers that are immoral. Their increasing adoption and value will only increase attempts to steal them.

If your computer or phone has bitcoin targeting malware then it can wait for the second you enter the private key to transfer bitcoins, assuming an Internet connection is available. The malware can make the transfer in fractions of a second, faster than you can block it. Two factor authentication means nothing if your bitcoins are transferred before you even access them.

Computers don't have the physical limits of humans. Waiting days, months or years to steal coins means nothing.


The way you describe it above you enter the private key with the majority balance before sending the unspent balance back to a paper wallet. If your system is compromised the majority balance can be stolen before reaching the new wallet.


Security is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain. If you have good habits in general for avoiding malware, then yes you probably have little worry. The problem is unless you're pretty much a security expert you can't be sure how likely you are to have obtained malware.


a) I imagine it will eventually
b) it provides a fuller security solution and so warrants the time to learn it, which is not much
c) malware can't infect it because it doesn't use an operating system; it's function specific
d) it can handle any bitcoin balance, small or large, securely
e) I think that depends

There are still two problems.

First, is the complexity of manually managing the private keys. If someone is investing in a wallet option they will want it to take care of most of their needs. If the use case is mostly storing and not spending coins, then Piper may be a great no brainer route to go. As you say most everyone can relate to securing physical things.

The second problem is a paper wallet doesn't mean full security. If you enter a private key onto a compromised computer your bitcoins can be stolen in a fraction of a second. A paper wallet only keeps coins secure so long as they only exist with the paper wallet.

Trezor, for example, addresses both problems and is a full solution.

My understanding is the paper used keeps the image about 7 years. Also you can plug in a USB stick (or several) to keep backups of the keys.

I think Piper is a big step forward for storing bitcoins safely and easily. See this thread for an idea of the problem:

Do I really need a Bitcoin wallet?

I think there isn't more enthusiasm because it's not a full solution. It doesn't address the coin spending side too.

There is no reason to bash it because it seems to do what it claims very well with no security holes. This means nobody comments much positively or negatively. I'm glad the project exists, though.

Just pay the taxes, people. It's not worth it.

Remember Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. People still get this mixed up. Bitcoin can be used anonymously if you know what you're doing and take great care. If you're not absolutely certain you know how to use Bitcoin anonymously you should assume you're not anonymous.

It would be trivial for interested government agents to link your identity with Bitcoin related activity. That means a likely audit if anything trips a flag. Keep good records and pay your taxes as required. That's my advice.

That's true, but while it's a headache a lot of banking related theft has a measure of recourse. With Bitcoin you're on your own.

It would be great if we could fix both problems, though.

Geez, we've got to make this simpler. No way Joe Average is going to do this.

You don't seem to realize periods of "being boring" is what differentiates Bitcoin from a Ponzi scheme.

It takes time to introduce, distribute and grow a currency, especially one as innovative and complex as Bitcoin. Obviously not everyone can obtain Bitcoin at the same exchange rate, so at the very least for credibility/fairness you would want periods of "boring" stability.

Anyway, project development and other things are in motion, just maybe not obviously to you.

Just to clarify these are people having delays with the banking side of MtGox transfers, which MtGox made an announcement about. As far as I know nobody has had problems transferring bitcoins.

It's about PR. Politicians (and journalists) need to be educated lest they perceive Bitcoin only in a negative light. Taking a strictly "us against them" viewpoint seems shortsighted.


Doing that is fine, but has limits. If Bitcoin is to grow it needs to enter the mainstream, which includes more moderate political viewpoints. Elizabeth Warren might not be a good fit, but some politicians are open to Bitcoin, like state rep Mark Warden from New Hampshire.

If you are long-term storing more coins with ANY service than you can afford to lose you are storing too much there. DeathAndTaxes above is right. A service may lose your coins not from dishonesty, but from something unforeseen.

That said people themselves also lose coins because it's still tricky to secure them. It takes time to learn/devise the best method for your personal use case, and the less tech savvy you are the more likely you'll make some mistake.

That being the case I recommend at the very least spreading your coins out. For example, services which seem to have decent record of holding coins responsibly are Mt.Gox, Blockchain.info, Coinbase.com and CampBX. One strategy you might use is spreading coins out among different reputable services, and storing some yourself. That way you should never lose the majority of your coins at once. As you become more confident in your own ability move more coins into your private storage method.

I understand the skeptical views on Elizabeth Warren. I'm skeptical too.

It just seems to me someone writing a book called "Rigged" about how the economic system is often rigged against people who work hard and play by the rules might be open to Bitcoin. Neither she or anybody else can stop it anyway, but she could be a powerful ally.

Why not? Cash is anonymous.


As I said above my instinct about her is she is in favor of the little guy, not the privileged/elite. That's what Bitcoin is about. I believe the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is in line with that, for example, ensuring banks can't charge loan shark level interest rates on credit cards, or have obscure non-obvious penalties and fees. Such protection I'd say is a good thing because, guess why, ordinary people have no financial alternative to banks!

In other words the regulation she would champion is only necessary because the financial system is so abusive to the little guy.

Bitcoin gives people options and it's a voluntary currrency. Regulations on Bitcoin for that reason are far less necessary, if they are at all. Bitcoin is not very different than people deciding to trade gold nuggets. That's anonymous and irreversible too, and wouldn't be very easy for the CFPB to regulate, but would she say Americans shouldn't be able to trade gold? I doubt that.

Bitcoins can be taxed. Remember that (rich) people already avoid taxes by clever money management & loopholes. That's why there have been ideas floated about letting people bring offshore money back into the U.S. at a special rate, so that money can actually be put to use.

It's sort of like pirating music vs. people that pay legally. You'll always have people willing to pay and play by all rules because that's the easiest.

As for what's in her heart she seems to be populist, and at the end of the day that's what Bitcoin is really about.

Some in the Bitcoin community are already in favor of regulation. Bitcoin is only a currency, a tool, and there are many ways to use it, just as there are many ways to use cash. Adding regulation doesn't change some of the core features Bitcoin has like the inflation limit and anonymity to those that take the time required to ensure it.

Interesting idea. Two links for an idea of her views on banking:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/elizabeth-warren-student-loans-91079.html
http://www.politico.com//story/2013/03/elizabeth-warren-plans-book-on-middle-class-89095.html

Did you try contacting them directly? I mean not through an account withdrawal. Sometimes when a service is dealing with problems a lot gets lost in communication. It may be that they know about your claim and have no intention to honor it. Then again it may be your claim got lost in all the confusion. I'd try contacting them directly if at all possible for that many BTC.

It would be no more unethical than you getting a cluster of earth diggers together to mine gold. With Bitcoin there is no central authority. Everything is essentially public and only subject to the rules of the free market. Do what you like.

I see you're pretty new, and may think mining coins is easily profitable. It's not. There is a lot of competition for it now. You may want to check out the mining section.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=14.0

Not exactly... check out this article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2012/03/01/no-surprise-here-bank-of-america-looks-to-charge-more-fees/

If you were doing arbitrage I'm guessing there was quite a bit of activity on your bank account. For example, if you only wanted to by several bitcoins to hold or trade for goods/services, you might make one or two large transactions with your bank account, but then only deal in bitcoins. However, it sounds like you might have lots of bank transfer activity which could have raised a flag even if you weren't doing anything wrong.

It may depend on the bank too though, as you're not the only one to receive a bank letter concerning bitcoins:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ha43p/just_got_an_interesting_letter_from_my_bank/

Last, be sure to keep track of and handle any tax requirements for your bitcoin exchanges.