Is your bitcoin safe in cold wallet?

[Meuh6879]

XT can't change the world because ... they don't provide changelog. 

[Amph]

so this is just a bunch of silly no-sense, because in th remote case this is true(which is not) it would not benefit the hacker also, because they would lost everything too, simple logic

so it would be utterly stupid from their point of view to destroy their own "hacked profit"....

What if they only steal Satoshi's one million coins, not any one else's? That is a large enough motivation to push out such a change

but i would not lost the coin, but only the value in this case, either way damaging bitcoin like that when you have a fortune that can be worth more in the future, still look very stupid to me

whoever has bitcoin should support it, because by supporting it he can increase the value of his coins, by damaging it, he just damaged his fortune at the end

this assuming that the consensus of 90%+(afaik it's not 51%), is in favor of a change that can put a risk everyone else...

[Rizky Aditya]

I keep some of my Bitcoin in a cold wallet. And I also keep some in a hot wallet that I use daily to make normal transactions like online shopping.

[Slark]

Wait, so it all mean that if I keep my Bitcoin stored offline in a cold wallet. Then in the future, when bitcoin's protocol would change or bitcoin will be hard forked or other ground breaking changes will happen I could potentially lose access to my coins? I feel that backward compatibility should be first law of bitcoin guaranteed by devs.

[LuckyYOU]

I read through this thread and you do got some valuable points here but shouldn't it have happened by now if it was really that easy?
Investing into bitcoin comes with certain risks, it's the risks you take and you're just going to deal with the consequences when it comes down to certain issues.

[bitcoin-hunter]

That is why I have a cold wallet and my normal wallet that I use daily. So in the future I don't lose all my money.
With me I like bitcoins but for now I just do 25% of my income to bitcoins. So that I will be safe.

[Mickeyb]

Wait, so it all mean that if I keep my Bitcoin stored offline in a cold wallet. Then in the future, when bitcoin's protocol would change or bitcoin will be hard forked or other ground breaking changes will happen I could potentially lose access to my coins? I feel that backward compatibility should be first law of bitcoin guaranteed by devs.

Everything will always be accessible, don't worry about it! Devs are not building some joke currency here, we are building a serious payment platform. Of course that the backward compatibility is the first thing that is guaranteed!

[sishendaoye]

What about trezor that is a good thing right to save or hold your bitcoins.
Oh well I don't know that much I am still learning about bitcoins.

[Kprawn]

I strongly believe nobody invested into Bitcoin now, would do something like this to "cut their own face" The consensus point will never be reached, if people know that they would

lose their coins. You will see nodes pop up like mushrooms to counter such a fork. This is the foundation of this technology and these miners and mining farms know that. You would

need a considerable amount of money to threaten Bitcoin consensus. 

[ausbit]

What about trezor that is a good thing right to save or hold your bitcoins.
Oh well I don't know that much I am still learning about bitcoins.

Bitcoins is safe in cold wallet but if we show or sometimes it happens, our system is open and some one is watching that time its really dangerous, because in this world we should not trust anyone.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

I wouldnt worry about this at all. Something like this would be hard to sneak in and it would take multiple devs to manage it. Id say its a non issue.

Then why is there an XT version out there? Does this mean these ABC guys are more trust worthy than those XYZ guys? What is the criteria to judge? And how do you make sure you are not biased

Because the XT guys have tried to centralize Bitcoin by doing a ridiculously big blocksize increase and they couldn't find a consensus with devs and most people aren't agreeing with that, therefore they freely started their own thing as Bitcoin XT. I don't really see what you are trying to say in the OP, all those risks have already been considered and are under consideration.

XT is too radical thus barely can get some agreement, but the proposal I see in segregated witness is more radical than that, he promote to change the whole bitcoin architecture, do you think that is under consideration? Someone already pointed out increased sybil attack risk in SWclient, check Lauda's thread here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1279444.msg13227840#msg13227840

Sigwit can be deployed in a soft fork, it's a way less risk than raising the blocksize. There aren't any real serious risks, otherwise Core would not consider it since the Core devs are the most conservative out there. You are still free to check the code since it's all open source. Also in the case an XT disaster happened (hard fork consensus is actually reached) no one loses coins because your coins would automatically show up on the new chain. But as pointed before no one cares about XT anymore so it's not an issue.

[sahliano]

i don't use cold wallet because i don't have much to be afraid for loosing it i think i will use it when i get some heavy stuff

[randy8777]

i don't use cold wallet because i don't have much to be afraid for loosing it i think i will use it when i get some heavy stuff

amounts that you right now consider not to be worth that much can be worth a lot in the future. if you do plan to hold your coins for the long term, then definitely store them offline.

[johnyj]

so this is just a bunch of silly no-sense, because in th remote case this is true(which is not) it would not benefit the hacker also, because they would lost everything too, simple logic

so it would be utterly stupid from their point of view to destroy their own "hacked profit"....

What if they only steal Satoshi's one million coins, not any one else's? That is a large enough motivation to push out such a change

but i would not lost the coin, but only the value in this case, either way damaging bitcoin like that when you have a fortune that can be worth more in the future, still look very stupid to me

whoever has bitcoin should support if because by supporting it he can increase the value of his coins, by damaging it, he just damaged his fortune at the end

this assuming that the consensus of 90%+(faik it's not 51%), is in favor of a change that can put a risk everyone else...

Not if a hacker who just want to steal some coin and sell them. The motivation becomes increasingly large when bitcoin price rise another several times

[Amph]

so this is just a bunch of silly no-sense, because in th remote case this is true(which is not) it would not benefit the hacker also, because they would lost everything too, simple logic

so it would be utterly stupid from their point of view to destroy their own "hacked profit"....

What if they only steal Satoshi's one million coins, not any one else's? That is a large enough motivation to push out such a change

but i would not lost the coin, but only the value in this case, either way damaging bitcoin like that when you have a fortune that can be worth more in the future, still look very stupid to me

whoever has bitcoin should support if because by supporting it he can increase the value of his coins, by damaging it, he just damaged his fortune at the end

this assuming that the consensus of 90%+(faik it's not 51%), is in favor of a change that can put a risk everyone else...

Not if a hacker who just want to steal some coin and sell them. The motivation becomes increasingly large when bitcoin price rise another several times

how much an hacker can steal, to put some damage he need a very good amount, look at the amount that was stolen from bitstamp, he didn't do much and they were 20k btc

even with 100k the market will recover more stronger, because the value at which the hacker will dump, it will only strengthen it