 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
Anti-Bitcoin Socialist Propaganda in New Zealand These people are scary. So glad again I don't have a TV. TV truly makes you dumber. I feel sad for the people who watch this drivel. And so glad I have no clue who these people are even though I live there! |
|
|
|
But the host can read the guest's memory and extract [the encryption keys] from there. I don't think thats true. VMWare fusion connects to the mac os via a nat connection which acts like a one way router. It sounds like either you didn't read my post, or you are very confused. The host can read ANYTHING in a vm. That's by definition. No clue what you mean with nat connection, that's completely irrelevant if the host can directly read the network buffer of the virtualised NIC. |
|
|
|
Specifically the sort of mid-security cool wallet that clients like Armory offer. I already have split-secret paper wallets for the "savings account" but I need something more accessible for more regular mid-grade purchases. I know a thing or two about a thing or two and would secure the VM holding private keys quite well - TrueCrypt full volume encryption on the guest OS and the virtual disk stored on a hardware-encrypted external USB that would only ever be plugged in when in use. No network adapters on the VM and so on. The only missing piece is I don't know enough about VMs from a security standpoint to know what new security vulnerabilities might be introduced - I'm not sure how much access the host PC has to the VM's RAM, for example, or if there is any way to limit that sort of vulnerability.
Thoughts?
I would say it's not much safer than not using a vm. Your disks are encrypted, so you might think the host cannot read/modify your wallets. But the host can read the guest's memory and extract it from there. Such attacks do not yet exist, but are not beyond a teenager with nothing better to do, and who's happy with a few thousand dollars in return (people get murdered for less). The only additional safety is that when the vm is not running, even if your host is compromised, you're safe. But if the host is compromised, and you don't know, and turn on the vm, all bets are off again. Given your mid-security requirements, I assume you have the vm running most of the time, so you have no additional security. |
|
|
|
|
rNHBD6Lzm1fww8i39Caft7F8QuzE8PNuWN
|
|
|
|
You can bet your ass the banking system will recover any loss it incures by either having the loss paid back by the government out of our tax dollars or by prtinging more money and paying themselves back, in turn making your deposit worth that much less in value....
In reply to the first replier. That's the difference: banks don't suffer losses, they basically adjust a number in their computer systems, and voila, new money is being created. With bitcoin, you can't do that. |
|
|
|
Just stumbled upon this article describing a hack where between $75 million and $2.5 billion was lost: The hackers targeted banks first in Europe and then in Latin America and the US, according to Intel-owned security vendor McAfee, which helped in the theft investigation, dubbed Operation High Roller.
The company said the hackers focused on large bank accounts and stole between $75 million and $2.5 billion. Most of the withdrawals were less than $10,000, and the biggest was $130,000. The thieves transferred stolen money to their own accounts in various European locations.
McAfee said the attacks were unusual in that they were largely automated and used cloud computing. Typically, people who hack bank accounts steal usernames and passwords and then manually transfer money from one victim at a time. That's more money lost than the entire bitcoin economy. Hopefully this helps to put things into perspective a bit. |
|
|
|
But here's the problem: People know where I live (or could easily find out, as I make little effort at hiding my offline identity). If I have thousands of Bitcoins on hand, and people know that, then I fear I would be making myself a target for home invasion. So how many visitors have you had, demanding you log in to your bank and transfer money to them? Or demanding you drive them to an ATM and get them cash? Or open the lock to your safe? |
|
|
|
|
He actually promised 15%. And everyone trusted him, because he was audited by the government.
Solution: simply abolish government audits. Buyer beware is cheaper, more efficient, and far more effective.
|
|
|
|
I don't get a reason why there are only 21M BTC? The actual number (21 million) has a technical reason. Could have been any other number. But a fixed number is important, else no one would mine. But note that BTC is infinitable dividable. I.e you have 0.1BTC, or 0.0001 BTC or 0.00000001BTC. Gold is also finite. There's only so much on earth. Having a fixed number doesn't matter. It simply mean you get slightly more stuff every year for the BTC you have saved. |
|
|
|
Average IQ seems high. If true, there is no correlation between IQ and the ability to keep your bitcoins or the bitcoins of others safe :-) |
|
|
|
Hi people, I'm a very seasoned Drupal developer (used it since 2004), and open for work on Drupal sites for bitcoin. I don't do graphics design, please hire me if you have performance issues with your site, want custom modules, or even transfering a photoshop design to a Drupal theme. My Drupal profile: http://drupal.org/user/143552Resume available upon request: berend@pobox.comI also run a Drupal hosting site: https://www.xplainhosting.com/Doesn't accept bitcoins yet, but hopefully one day! |
|
|
|
|
As this has become a very large topic, was there any mention that a gpg encrypted wallet is as safe as it gets? Doesn't matter even if you post it on a hackersanonymous board. Unless quantum computers become a reality, no one can decrypt a gpg 4096-bit encrypted wallet.
Obviously to use the wallet you might have to decrypt it. But you can decrypt to a memory disk, transfer the money out/in, and encrypt it again.
I'm happy to create 100 BTC wallet and post that publicly to prove my point :-)
|
|
|
|
|
