|
beckspace (OP)
|
 |
June 17, 2011, 05:28:31 AM |
|
I'm a lot concerned about future security of crypto-currencies.
We hearing lots of stories of Bitcoin theft, well, I'm predicting a turmoil.
I'm realizing now that the Bitcoin concept is good, but it's not perfect, yet.
Maybe we need banks, with "LIMITS" of transaction. Both to protect from speculation and protect from violent thieves.
If someone, in my country, kidnap someone for it's money in the bank, what happens when your money (passcodes) is in your head and the wallet in the cloud?
The kidnapper would know about the second "hidden" volume on your file. Maybe Truecrypt needs infinite creation of hidden volumes, I don't know.
Maybe we have to thrust our crypto-currency in banks, and you can only make big transactions in person, in private cabinets, anonymous.
Nobody leaves money or gold inside their houses. It's dangerous, at least in my country. Imagine if the gold it's in your heads. We need solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Your bitcoin is secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter a majority of miners, no matter what." -- Greg Maxwell
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Garrett Burgwardt
|
|
June 17, 2011, 05:49:22 AM |
|
I agree that bitcoin banks could be a good idea. They'd be different from regular banks, certainly, but providing a safe way to store bitcoins and interact with them is a good service.
If you have a good safe system, storing gold in your house is a viable option if you don't want to trust banks or whoever else.
If you have a good computing environment that is secure, storing bitcoins yourself is a viable option.
|
|
|
|
|
hugolp
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001
Radix-The Decentralized Finance Protocol
|
|
June 17, 2011, 05:52:45 AM |
|
Promoting USB memory sticks with a linux OS and a bitcoin wallet is better idea.
You have two wallets, the day to day one in your normal computer and the "rich" one, with most of your funds in the USB. When you want to transfer funds from the "rich" wallet you turn off the computer, insert the USB and turn on the computer so it loads the OS from the USB. Then you transfer the funds, close the computer and remove the USB.
|
|
|
|
|
beckspace (OP)
|
|
June 17, 2011, 06:03:49 AM |
|
Then you transfer the funds, close the computer and remove the USB.
But Blockexplorer is there, for all of us. I think you'll have to "laundry" your rich wallet. |
|
|
|
|
|
Garrett Burgwardt
|
|
June 17, 2011, 06:07:55 AM |
|
Promoting USB memory sticks with a linux OS and a bitcoin wallet is better idea.
You have two wallets, the day to day one in your normal computer and the "rich" one, with most of your funds in the USB. When you want to transfer funds from the "rich" wallet you turn off the computer, insert the USB and turn on the computer so it loads the OS from the USB. Then you transfer the funds, close the computer and remove the USB.
No. USB sticks are phenomenally likely to break or corrupt your data. Or get stolen, lost etc. |
|
|
|
|
hugolp
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001
Radix-The Decentralized Finance Protocol
|
|
June 17, 2011, 06:34:33 AM |
|
But Blockexplorer is there, for all of us. I think you'll have to "laundry" your rich wallet. Whose talking about laundering money? I am just talking about securing your bitcoins. No. USB sticks are phenomenally likely to break or corrupt your data. Or get stolen, lost etc. 1. Security copies are a must, and that is independently of anything else. You can use this USB method and still have your wallet saved in other way or even encryupted in some online storage service. 2. Yes, if they break into your home they can steal you from you. You might want to have your bitcoins somewhere sfe. Its always a trade off of security vs commodity vs cost of keep it secure. But this is true for any kind of money, not only Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
beckspace (OP)
|
|
June 17, 2011, 07:09:02 AM |
|
But Blockexplorer is there, for all of us. I think you'll have to "laundry" your rich wallet. Whose talking about laundering money? I am just talking about securing your bitcoins. Because the bad guy can see the history of transactions of your "everyday" wallet. If there something suspicious, like big transfers for only one address, it's a problem. You can manually "laundry" your money generating new addresses in every transaction at your "savings" wallet. Make it little chunks at a time, with broken numbers. (Just a little paranoid right now.) In future versions of the client, Bitcoin should look more like an user-friendly password-protected crypto-currency with plausible-deniability of it's existence (multiple hidden volumes). OR kids in school should learn how to protect and secure a digital file right now. It's very hard to be your own bank, but i'm loving every minute of it. |
|
|
|
|
hugolp
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001
Radix-The Decentralized Finance Protocol
|
|
June 17, 2011, 08:22:30 AM |
|
But Blockexplorer is there, for all of us. I think you'll have to "laundry" your rich wallet. Whose talking about laundering money? I am just talking about securing your bitcoins. Because the bad guy can see the history of transactions of your "everyday" wallet. If there something suspicious, like big transfers for only one address, it's a problem. You can manually "laundry" your money generating new addresses in every transaction at your "savings" wallet. Make it little chunks at a time, with broken numbers. (Just a little paranoid right now.) In future versions of the client, Bitcoin should look more like an user-friendly password-protected crypto-currency with plausible-deniability of it's existence (multiple hidden volumes). OR kids in school should learn how to protect and secure a digital file right now. It's very hard to be your own bank, but i'm loving every minute of it. Yes, an attacker could see that you transfered money from one account (the "rich" one) to the day to day account, so what? It would be extremelly difficult for him to attack you just in the precise moment you fire up your computer with the USB and the minute you need to transfer funds to your day to day account to use them. Specially since he/she has no idea when are you going to do it and it could be months or years for you to use that USB. And then he would have to detect the new computer, find out the operating system and hack it in a few minutes. And if you are very paranoic you could to it in your neightbour computer that has a different internet conexion. There is no system 100% secure, not even the network at the Pentagon, but the odds of someone fucking you if you do this are very very low. |
|
|
|
|
bcearl
|
|
June 17, 2011, 09:00:42 AM |
|
Promoting USB memory sticks with a linux OS and a bitcoin wallet is better idea.
You have two wallets, the day to day one in your normal computer and the "rich" one, with most of your funds in the USB. When you want to transfer funds from the "rich" wallet you turn off the computer, insert the USB and turn on the computer so it loads the OS from the USB. Then you transfer the funds, close the computer and remove the USB.
No. USB sticks are phenomenally likely to break or corrupt your data. Or get stolen, lost etc. You got cryptography and error correction for that purpose. A single USB would be not enough, of course. |
Misspelling protects against dictionary attacks NOT
|
|
|
|
flug
|
|
June 17, 2011, 09:36:38 AM |
|
I agree that bitcoin banks could be a good idea. They'd be different from regular banks, certainly, but providing a safe way to store bitcoins and interact with them is a good service.
If you have a good safe system, storing gold in your house is a viable option if you don't want to trust banks or whoever else.
If you have a good computing environment that is secure, storing bitcoins yourself is a viable option.
+1 Except that online bitcoin banks are absolutely essential. It's good that bitcoins *can* be stored independently of banks, but most people simply don't have the expertise to secure significant amounts locally. |
|
|
|
|
|
