Did you read and follow the Instructions?



Do you have libdb-dev and libdb++-dev installed?
If not, install them:

OP never mentioned anywhere that a credit system should be created.

He is talking about the advantages credit cards have (points, miles, cash back).
Further, he proposed something like 1%-2% cash back / rebate when paying with BTC than compared to paying with FIAT.


@OP
There are already crypto cards available which give you cashback in crypto when using them.
Further, each merchant would have to decide for him/herself when accepting crypto. Nothing speaks against merchants giving a discount when paying with specific payment methods. Actually this is being utilized already (not with crypto tho afaik).

I am not sure what kind of system you are thinking about which would be needed.

True.
But an encrypted USB stick is not comparable to a hardware wallet.

Using a dedicated (online) PC with an USB stick containing the sensitive information -> overkill for a hot wallet.
Using the dedicated PC offline as a cold wallet -> more secure and doesn't require more hardware/devices.

An encrypted USB storage device does not have any hardware security. The private keys are being unencrypted and accessible when a transaction is being signed.
This does not apply to a hardware wallet, where the private keys are inside of a secure element which does not leak any data while signing transactions.

It doesn't.

Most articles you can find online about something crypto related are full of wrong information.
I rarely see good articles without any major mistakes.

However, depending on the wallet you are using, you might be linking your IP and your addresses together all the time.

If you aren't using a full node or a privacy-orientated lightweight wallet (e.g. wasabi), you are most likely leaking information about you towards the server fetching all information from the blockchain.

That's pretty optimistic 
I wouldn't count on that. But that's the problem with everything, not just bitcoin scripts.

People visiting URLs, downloading mail attachments, activating macros.. everything happens all the time. And copy/pasting bitcoin scripts probably will happen too.
But i guess it is easier to steal coins by telling the victim to download/execute something, so this shouldn't be a big issue ?

I'm with ETFbitcoin here.
The bottleneck seems to be your external disk.

Is your disk attached via USB2 or USB3?
Could you temporarily copy the required data onto an internal HDD and try it again? This would confirm whether the HDD is the bottleneck causing the issues. An external SSD connected via USB3 should be fine too.

The fastest way to access your coins is number 2) mentioned by HCP.

Install core, copy your wallet.dat file into the data directory of core, start it up and export the private keys.
Then use any lightweight client (electrum is easy to use) and import them. You'll be able to send them to a new address without needing to download the whole blockchain.

However, before installing electrum, make sure to verify the signature. You don't want to lose all of your coins because you accidentally downloaded a fake version of electrum.

---

You do realize that no one ever suggested to delete something?

Gaining physical access is not always necessary.
It depends on their system and network topology. If their (online accessible) server is doing the requests to top up the hot wallet, it might be possible to compromise the cold wallet by compromising their server.
Obviously, this would be negligent and definitely not a real cold wallet. But the possibility exists, especially if no it security specialists have been hired.




Well, the HMAC is a hashed message authentication code. It is usually used to protect the integrity of messages.
But @sheenshane probably just read the wikipedia article and thought he knows what it is used for in the key derivation of electrum.. Therefore his statement made little to no sense.

I partially agree with o_e_l_e_o.

I'd like to suggest a few improvements:

• Use an open source project from github which makes it easier to reconstruct the executable in X years.
• Do not only include the source code / instruction in the will, but everyone having a share should know that. Just go for 3 out of 3 shares.
• It doesn't necessarily have to be Shamirs secret sharing scheme. There are other cryptogrpahically secure sharing schemes available, such as Mignotte's or Asmuth-Bloom's scheme. Rather go for open source and reproducible, regardless whether it is Shamir's or an other secure scheme.

With your approach only 2 shares are required:

• HW Wallet + Pin or
• Mnemonic code + Password

And with a discovered vulnerability in the HW wallet, maybe only the HW wallet is enough.
You shoudn't treat a HW wallet as completely secure against someone who has a lot of time, technical knowledge and access to the device.

Read the OP, and you'll know why.
This simply does not work the way OP wants/needs it.

It is about collaborated access to the funds, not multiple layers of security.

Um das archivieren noch etwas einfacher zu machen, kann auch einfach ein Bookmark erstellt werden, welches folgende URL enthält:

Damit kann man, wenn man sich auf der zu archivierenden Seite befindet, einfach auf das Bookmark klicken und die Seite wird archiviert und öffnet sich in einem neuen Tab.
So spart man sich einige Klicks und copy&paste.

Ein Klick genügt 

Windows 
Man lernt ja wirklich nie aus, was Windows so alles für einen Müll produziert 

@hanspeter77, könntest du mal aufzählen, was du schon alles probiert hast? Ist schwer Vorschläge zu machen, ohne zu wissen was du bereits (erfolglos) probiert hast.

But a 3 out of 3 scheme does.



Using a container is probably the best approach for people with little technical knowledge.
Although, one could argue that googling "AES decryption" or "secret sharing scheme X" shouldn't be too hard.

Comments about what? Reusable payment codes?

Just look at the forum. The majority of people are using a wallet which does not protect their privacy at all.
Even worse, the majority gives away any personal information for a few $. Just take a look at the so-called "bounty" section. It is crazy how negligent those people are.

You will only find a small percentage of people on here who actually care about there privacy.

A secret sharing scheme has the property of not disclosing any information about the secret with less than the required amount of shares.
With N-1 shares where N is the amount of required shares, you don't gain any information about the secret at all.

A secret sharing scheme does not mean you split the words in two halves, since this indeed does reveal information about the secret.

Yes, and that would match what has been proposed with RBF:



So, you can only use confirmed UTXO's to bump a fee.
All unconfirmed inputs used, must have been used in the original transaction too.

I don't think so.
Why would you teach new people bad habits ?

Crypto is basically be your own bank.
With using web wallets and other online services to store your coins, you are relying on central entities to store your coins. Nothing is decentralized about that.

There are extremely good and privacy-focused wallets available. And there are wallets with an extremely easy-to-use GUI available.
But you didn't mention any of them.



Conflict of interest, maybe?
Objectively, your list is horrible.

Your wallet file is not deleted when you uninstall electrum.

Also, the verification of the signature is not a mandatory step, but highly recommended to make sure you are not using a malicious version from a fake site.
You can find a tutorial on electrum.org.

Additionally, you should have a (non-digital) backup of your mnemonic code (the 12/24 words). You can't always rely on your AppData folder to be intact.




You can protect the mnemonic code with a passphrase. But that's not the password used for accessing the electrum wallet.

No.
Ledger does not have any information about you which could help to bruteforce your mnemonic code or access your seed in any other way.


I'd say this person either was extremely stupid and negligent (which is pretty likely) or it is just a plain lie.
The fact not a single address or txid has been posted, makes me believe that it is the latter.

Usually, when people make dumb things, they start with pretty useless information and then release more and more useful information to actually figure out where they messed up. Not in this case.