We are also discussing the Ledger issue in the German board and found a tweet claiming that the Nano Ledger S may not be affected because the device is too old for the the current Ledger Recover firmware update?
Regardless of the fact that you should still look for another hardware wallet company, can anyone with a more technical background comment on whether this information is correct?
I'm not a technical fan, but is this thought true? If the Nano S can "dodge" the 2.2.1 update. then it may be able to dodge another update later, then it will eventually be devices with outdated systems that are increasingly vulnerable while at any later higher update it won't exclude all the new features of 2.2.1. It's anyone's guess since part of their code is closed source, but it might very well be that this backdoor can't be integrated into the Nano Ledger S for whatever reason -- why else would they want to miss out on that sweet sweet subscription money? On the other hand they might also just want to entice people to upgrade to their latest hardware wallets, because obviously everyone (and their moms, as we have learned) wants this feature. Either way, at that point the 2.2.1 update is the vulnerability. If you can live without the GUI features even outdated hardware wallets can stay secure for a very long time (with few exceptions that involve physical access). |
|
|
|
Allegedly, and the fact that they have made it very clear everywhere, the Nano S model will be the only one that will not have that back door.
But how now are we to know? Doubts were left in the air, there is not much way to remedy it.
On the other hand it's unlikely that the backdoor has been there before because otherwise the hackers would have stolen the wallet seeds alongside the customer data way back when  You don't need to open source the firmware if you just open source the costumer data! *taps forehead* What happened with Trezor? I remember a seed extraction hack from a couple years back, but that one still required physical access which makes it not even nearly as bad as what Ledger is doing. That, and their partnership with Wasabi and blockchain analysis firms, resulting in government sanctioned surveillance and censorship. Interesting, I wasn't aware of the censorship controversy around Wasabi. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. (Still, in my book not even remotely as bad as what Ledger is doing for 2 reasons: (1) I primarily expect security from a hardware wallet, with privacy being a nice-to-have, but I don't mind falling back on other options for that, (2) using transactions with questionable privacy is still optional while having a backdoor is not. But I'll leave it at that, for fear of straying off-topic. I definitely see your point regarding SatoshiLabs' company policy though.) |
|
|
|
This is so wrong on so many levels and I just can't wrap my head around it. I just hope the market will punish Ledger accordingly, but I don't have much faith. All the more important to keep calling this for what it is: A backdoor. Not an option. A backdoor. Your only option is to pay for the privilege of accessing the backdoor as well. Remember when Trezor and Ledger were the two best hardware wallets out there, and every thread had people (me included!) recommending either/both of them. How the mighty have fallen! Both are complete and utter trash now, completely ruined by awful decisions such as this one. Seriously, do the management teams behind both wallets understand nothing about bitcoin?
What happened with Trezor? I remember a seed extraction hack from a couple years back, but that one still required physical access which makes it not even nearly as bad as what Ledger is doing. Ledger have just admitted that their entire design is deeply flawed. Reminds me a bit of that scene in The Big Short: "I don't get it. Why are they confessing?" "They're not confessing. They're bragging." what i also wonder is what happens to the Legder sticks that don't go through this update - can they continue to be used without problems?
Probably. But you can't ever be sure that this backdoor hasn't been there all along, as pointed out by others upthread. |
|
|
|
Vielleicht will man damit einfach keinen Aufwand mehr betreiben wenn der Laden eh dicht macht, oder es läuft alles schon nach abweichenden internen Kriterien der Muttergesellschaft, keine Ahnung.
Kann auch sein. Wenn z.B. deren Compliance Abteilung mittlerweile zurecht gestutzt wurde, ist es einfacher Konten zu sperren als den ganzen Dokumentationsaufwand zu betreiben der mittlerweile gefordert wird. Fragwürdig ist nur wieso sie dir das Konto gesperrt, und nicht einfach gekündigt haben. Um compliant zu bleiben hätte Letzteres eigentlich auch reichen müssen. (außer natürlich die Fidor kann nicht alle Konten so schnell kündigen wie sie gerne möchte, weil sie das Kapital noch braucht... ein Schelm, der Böses denkt) Jedenfalls weiß man da gleich wieder wieso man Bitcoiner ist (u.a.).
Catch-22 des Bitcoiner Daseins: Je mehr man als Bitcoiner mit Banken zu tun hat, desto mehr erinnern die Banken einen daran wieso man zum Bitcoiner geworden ist. |
|
|
|
Wer jetzt noch Geld bei der Fidor Bank hat, sollte das möglichst schnell transferieren. Wenn es Fidor nicht mehr gibt, kann die BaFin nicht viel retten.
Ganz so ist es auch nicht, dafür gibt's ja die Einlagensicherung. (wobei sich wer mehr als 100k bei einer Bank hat auch unabhängig von Fidor Gedanken über Risikomanagement machen sollte) Und wenn die Fidor das Konto nicht nur sperrt, sondern auch schließt (z.B. weil sie den Laden endgültig dicht machen), dann kommt das Geld auf ein Treuhandkonto*. Das Geld aus dem Treuhandkonto dann rauszubekommen ist allerdings wieder ein eigener Kreuzweg, insofern macht es auf alle Fälle Sinn die Sache eher früher als später zu klären. *Angaben ohne Gewähr, sind nur Infos die ich als Laie mal zu ähnlichen Fällen rausgefunden habe |
|
|
|
Weis jemand was genaueres zur Nachweispflicht? Soweit ich weis bezieht sich das doch vor allem auf Nachweise gegenüber der Bank bei Bareinzahlungen etc., aber falls man tatsächlich ein Ermittlungsverfahren an den Hals bekommt dann liegt die Beweislast doch bei den Ermittlungsbehörden?
Die Nachweispflicht bzw. Auskunft über Mittelherkunft kann sämtliche Einzahlungen betreffen die irgendwie "auffällig" sind. Das kann einem selbst bei privat an privat passieren, zumindest wenn es sich um größere Summen handelt. Allerdings fragen Banken sowas in der Regel an bevor sie das Konto sperren, um abzuwägen ob sie das Konto überhaupt sperren müssen bzw. das Geschäftsverhältnis auflösen sollten. Dementsprechend klingt das was dir da passiert ist in der Tat sehr komisch. Vielleicht versucht Fidor einen richtig harten Cut von Crypto zu machen oder es laufen gerade irgendwelche Ermittlungen die alle Kraken/Fidor Kunden unter Generalverdacht stellen. Viel Erfolg auf alle Fälle! |
|
|
|
|
Danke für die Auswertung 1miau! Ziemlich krass wie Kaspa derzeit unser Portfolio trägt, bin sehr gespannt wie sich der Coin im weiteren Verlauf des Jahres entwickelt.
|
|
|
|
|
EUR 24545,-
Username: heretik2
|
|
|
|
I'm saying that a cryptocurrency doesn't need to be permissionless to be decentralized. we can build a web of trust concept.
Permissionlessness is exactly the point though. Decentralization is only a means to an end. Simply put, Bitcoin is not permissionless so that it can be decentralized. Bitcoin is decentralized because that's the only way for it to be permissionless. Decentralization is the easy part, it's permissionlessness that's the tricky one. |
|
|
|
1) the halving
That's all you need to know. Really.
I really don't get why the halving so often gets ignored when someone reasons about one of Bitcoin's -- and with it, crypto's -- current or future bull runs. And that despite it being one of Bitcoin's most prominent features and having shown strong correlation with price increases like clockwork for more than a decade at this point. Granted, the supply shocks get less and less pronounced with each subsequent halving, so the jury is still out on how much or little impact future halvings will have. But completely ignoring it is still strange to me. That being said, once the FED and other central banks decrease interest rates again, it will likely have an impact on crypto alongside stocks. I just don't think it's going to be the trigger. |
|
|
|
|
Prediction 2: $28,761
bech32 address: bc1qwvnm4g4jfjg5nr0pzu9mxdyu865f24nc0dckhv
|
|
|
|
Was sind die Prophezeiungen eurerseits wie es dieses Jahr noch weitergehen wird?
Kurzes Aufbäumen in den Sommermonaten (40k-50k), danach bis Ende des Jahres leichte Stagnation (~30k). Mit einem neuen ATH würde ich auch erst 2024 rechnen. |
|
|
|
What's your use case? Do you just want to run a node to help the network and maybe have a full node to experiment on, do you want to run a server for commercial purposes, do you want to run a LN routing node? For running a simple Bitcoin node generally speaking either should be fine as, as you'll probably only feel a real difference by how long it will take for your node to do the initial sync. Depending on what else you are planning to do with your PC I personally would prefer the i7 over the i5, though that really comes down to budget and how much the price difference is. If it's really just a plain old Bitcoin node with no other use cases, an i5 should imho be enough. If you plan on building a LN routing node with a considerable amount of channels, the i7 might be indeed more attractive. Keep in mind that Bitcoin nodes can run on hardware as simple as RaspberryPi 4 or lower, at least ignoring running a LN node on top. Same for storage. Generally speaking for running a node either should be fine, so in my opinion it again really depends on what else you plan on doing with your PC, budget and price difference. Though the last time I checked I believe M2 NVMe SSDs were actually even cheaper or about as expensive as a SATA-3 SSD despite considerably better performance. 1 TB should be enough, though I would keep an eye on SSD health. If you accidentally buy a model with a bad track record or unlucky firmware [1] its lifespan could be considerably shorter than expected. [1] https://www.tomshardware.com/news/samsung-980-pro-ssd-failures-firmware-update |
|
|
|
He then asked me this question, which I wasn't entirely sure how to asnwer. IF Bitcoin just stays a store-of-vaue/digital-gold type of thing, because it has many advantages in comparison to physical store-of-values but never is mainly used for payments: How can the network incentive to keep running lots and lots of expensive mining hardware with high-energy-consumption (lets forget about the possibility for other proof-of-work algos and free energy solutions like fusion power etc for this example) be maintained? If the network is only used every once in a while for a transfer of value from one entity to another? Low fees lead to Bitcoin being used as means of payments. High fees lead to a shift of Bitcoin as store of value that gets transacted rarely. What we currently see, is something inbetween. And I believe it will remain that way, as it seems that we always reach an equilibrium between the fee market and how people use Bitcoin, similar to how we always reach an equilibrium of profitable mining. if in 2140 (and before) the price of Bitcoin will be high and the fees will be high, will the Lightning network always be cheap at that point?
The economics of LN fees are different from the economics of mining fees, enabling Lightning transactions to remain much cheaper than on-chain transactions. Discussing that in detail would get off-topic though. |
|
|
|
|
EUR 27523,-
Username: heretik2
|
|
|
|
The book is on Github, so why not skim it a little and see if getting a physical copy makes sense for you?  I was also advising people to read it on Github but then one member said sometimes it's better to have physical one also to help the author that way appreciating his efforts to provide us with that valuable resource about bitcoin.There are lot of videos also from Andreas which anyone can see here to have more knowledge. Hence why I recommend skimming it on Github to see whether getting a physical copy makes sense for OP  Personally I've also been moving more towards physical copies lately, both to support the authors I appreciate and to lessen my screentime. Also at least to me reading a physical copy usually provides me with a clearer mind because I get less easily distracted and am in a different context than while reading something on a laptop or phone. That being said, I feel like it's almost underappreciated that Andreas Antonopoulos is providing his book online, for free. That alone makes him support-worthy in my book (heh). |
|
|
|
Die 30.000 (USD) sind wieder da Wie gesagt, eigentlich erwarte ich maximal so 2-3000 $ höher wieder eine Pause. Aber es kann natürlich auch sein, dass jetzt richtig FOMO aufkommt und wir gleich in die mittleren oder sogar hohen 30.000er steigen. Das Indiz dafür, dass langsam wieder eine schöne bullische Aktivität aufgebaut wird, ist für mich das Fehlen eines Dips runter auf 25000, mit dem ich eigentlich gerechnet hatte. 40.000 sehe ich aber noch ein paar Wochen/Monate weg. Und einen erneuten Dip auf 20.000 noch nicht 100% ausgeschlossen. Aber zu 80-90% schon Gerade auf Grund des sehr dünnen Volumen hätte ich ebenfalls noch mit einem Dip gerechnet bevor wir es an die 30k geht. Aber gut, gerade wenn etwas so nahe liegt, trifft oft genau das Gegenteil ein. War vielleicht ein kleiner Short Squeeze auch gleich dabei? |
|
|
|
The book is on Github, so why not skim it a little and see if getting a physical copy makes sense for you? https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbookWhile it gets more in-depth as the book goes on, at least the first two chapters are aimed at a general audience. Even so I think at least parts of the other chapters can be worthwhile to an interested person, even with limited understanding of computer science. |
|
|
|
|
Prediction 1: $26,211
bech32 address: bc1qwvnm4g4jfjg5nr0pzu9mxdyu865f24nc0dckhv
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
