Sure, the idea already came up somewhere. But two things:
1. It would have to be shortened considerably, which is possible I think. Right now it would give you a few hundred pages.
2. Have fun typing it in when you want to use your coins. (So a few sheets of 2D barcodes might make more sense)

3. Tell this to a noobie and he will end up with a sheet of paper with the word "wallet.dat" printed on it. And he will then complain loudly to you if it doesn't allow him to access his bitcoins

Well of course it touches RAM, but the point is, that your liveCD is clean like a virgin, so there shouldn't be any chance for a trojan to interfere with your system.



Sure, there are simpler alternatives. See the wiki (link in the article) for another secure setup. My aim was to obtain 100% security, which is in no way necessary for everybody.

And yes, if you're using Windows for serious business, you really shouldn't. But that holds true in general. Oh and, I didn't say "install", just boot a liveCD from an USB-stick, its quite fast.

Well, to be fair, that's actually the traditional way opensource programs usually do their numbering: total understatement. If it was a commercial program, you bet they would be at least at version 3 right now.

As has been said elsewhere, this wouldn't work, since the client has to somehow decrypt the file in order to use it. Decryption => a decrypted copy is stored in RAM => a clever program can find and copy it.

So this would be rather dangerous, since it would give users a false sense of security, prompting them to be even more careless. I know lots of users are whining right now and blaming the devs for not including encryption, but this is simply the truth of the matter.

Alex, I think you're wrong. You can send anything you want to a given bitcoin address, I mean otherwise the network would have to refuse a certain transaction. That's just not the case. Maybe you're confusing this with how the client behaves?

Let me say this again: You may do the following: put your wallet.dat in a safe, delete/shred any local copies, use a different account to transfer coins to it and do this as long as you please. Nothing will make it generate new addresses, that's the job of the client. Your wallet is just the _key_ to a number of addresses.

And true, you can and should use blockexplorer.com, so you'll have an oversight over what's happening on your safety account.

Ooh, that would be tits!

Nope, that would be strange and impractical. And probably not even possible to implement. So transfer as many coins as you'd like to your preferred address, nothing is going to go wrong.

The whole thing with the generation of new addresses is simply a mechanism in the _client_ in order to gain further anonymity.

And thanks a million everybody for answering questions!

No. Interception is impossible, simply because the whole concept of a private key implies that it will _never_ have to leave your PC. It's just used to generate a signature if you will, which then "proves" to the network that you are allowed to make a transaction from address X.

Don't sweat, I like taking the piss. Just yanking your chain...

My initial point was, that you don't need to access your wallet.dat in order to transfer funds to it, so as long as you're in piggybank-mode, a tiny SDcard in a safe seems the least error-prone way.

But you're right of course. If you can store a netbook safely somewhere and trust its hardware will remain intact it'll work. Just never, ever install any programs in userspace. And of course, see that you never use sudo for anything you're not 100% sure about. So thanks for your contribution (Ugh, that's me being nice, I hate myself already).

+1 for you jerfelix

aral: So you're saying burning CDs is too tedious, better buy a netbook and use that as medium? And do you specifically require a crappy one?  

See my link in the guide. Not only are there physical keyloggers which you usually put between the keyboard an the USB-port, but there are ways to remotely monitor what you're typing.

bcearl: Your setup seems quite the sensible thing to do. It's actually the method recommended by the wiki, and right now I can't think of any reason why this shouldn't be very secure. Especially if you never run any programs when logged in as the secure user.

However, the problem of keylogging (physically) still exists, as your password is the point of entry for any attacker. Other than that, you'll be completely fine.

Edit: Actually, the weak point is the login password, just wanted to clarify that (If I'm correct in assuming that your home directory is decrypted as soon as you log in. At least in RAM.). Also, scusi for the double post.

Thanks for the sticky, and thanks for the corrections. Keep it up. 10 spelling mistakes corrected and I will personally invent a new swearword and post it here.

I'll have a look at both, promised. I have to run now though, I'll be back later.

Oh snap. Good to know though, and yes, the wallet only contains the addresses already generated at the time the file was backed up. I will refrain from mentioning this in the guide though, since 1: I advise against using the wallet you just backed up, 2: with the 10 fresh addresses generated, this shouldn't happen anymore, 3: I'm trying to keep it simple and hope not to confuse anybody. As Confucius says: Confusion is the death of non-confusion (and oversight)

I did not know that. Are you sure, it's not just one of the occasions where --rescan would have done the trick? What version was it?


Wow. My sincere thanks. I'll PM you in case I make any relevant additions to the text. Glad that you took out the emoticions, they look dumb in plain text

Also, feel free to delete the address mentioned at the bottom, that way it won't come across quite as desperately

And you may want to delete the mention about "comments"

Brainslug: Seems to kinda-work, but always be careful with overly complicated schemes: the possibilities for making an error are simply much bigger. Also, it seems a little tedious. Plus there is the physical security of your notebook. If you don't encrypt the partition, it will be open to anyone getting his hands on your machine.


I aim to please. Happy that you like it.

NO!! Encryption is not some magic thingamajawb that protects you from all evil.

Let me clarify: A _backup_ is of absolutely NO USE. So your weekly trip doesn't accomplish anything if the very same file has been on your main operating system. This is a dangerous fallacy, hence my analogy with "keys" instead of "wallets".

Again: that would be like making a copy of your safe-key every week and putting that in the vault.

It has to be a new, untainted address, in conjunction with the wallet.dat that you deposit. Actually, this is way more convenient, since you don't have to access your bank vault at all. You just deposit/sent the coins into the right addresses.

Great, you rock. Nice to see some progress by the community. If encryption is what you prefer, these kind of tools are perfect. Want to bundle it into a liveCD? In my experience, it's quite trivial to do.


Wat

+1, I got it now. AES is actually secure enough, that it'll be safe forever provided mathematics don't completely vanish and the laws of physics still apply (and your key-length is sufficient).

Still, I prefer not to encrypt the file, since the passphrases either have to be written down or remembered, both of which aren't exactly ideal (Think brain hemorrhage, which I definitely plan to get one of these days).

Also, newbs can barely handle Ubuntu.