Hacked and stolen

[warpio]

A good idea warpio that might work as well as long as it is able to be compatible with the current bitcoin clients
Which i think plays also also a small minor contribution into my drama.
I had to update the client/wallet so thats why the wallet was on my pc.
Ofcourse i should have put it back on the removable disc but i simply forgot to do it because of all kinda personal problems
Their is nothing i can do to change the events which have lead to this event.
Should i have not reported these botnetters to the pool owners ?, should i not have reported them to internet police ?

As far as I know, offline clients shouldn't need to be updated. Since the algorithm for creating private/public keys and transactions never changes. The only reason for updating the client would be if you need to check your balance on it, but that would be best done a different computer than where your wallet is stored.

[Mike Christ]

AGAIN, that is not BITCOIN itself, that's the users who mess up. Bitcoin can be stored safe on a paper wallet.

No, you are wrong. I already gave you an example that you ignored. The most popular bitcoin client comes with the encryption turned off by default. It's not users who mess up, it's bitcoin community and developes who mess up here.

Paper wallet is just for storage. If you want Gold 2.0 only, then it's fine. Let's tell people the truth then: the only secure way is to store BTC on the paper. Period. Don't use anything else. And please forget about wide adoption, payments, etc. in this case.

A fool and his money are soon parted.  We can hand-hold and point the finger at the devs all day long, but there's a good reason why the PIN on my debit card isn't 1111.

[prezbo]

But i sincerely would like to see some kinda secure system or a bank where you can put the coins for safe keeping with some kind of protection if it is being hacked.

Something like an offline/paper wallet, perhaps?  

[lexxus]

It is the same as blaming a door manufacturer, because you didn't lock your door and got robbed.

Then using Bitcoin is like learning how to make doors, locks, keys before you can pay.

[lexxus]

A fool and his money are soon parted.  We can hand-hold and point the finger at the devs all day long, but there's a good reason why the PIN on my debit card isn't 1111.

Yes! And you know why your pin is not 1111? It's because your bank won't allow this.
In any good bank, changing your default pin to 1111 is prohibited. And even default PIN generation process is tuned to avoid this kind of PINs. You cannot even get pin 1111 by chance.
Do you know see the difference? This exactly what I mean when I say that default security must be in-place for a mainstream users.

[1PFYcabWEwZFm2Ez5LGTx3ftz]

Then using Bitcoin is like learning how to make doors, locks, keys before you can pay.

If you want to use a car safely, you need to know how a car is made and how it works.
If you want to use a door and a lock safely, you need to know how doors, locks and keys are made and how they work.
If you want to use bitcoin safely, you need to know how it works.

It is pretty much common sense.

[Mike Christ]

A fool and his money are soon parted.  We can hand-hold and point the finger at the devs all day long, but there's a good reason why the PIN on my debit card isn't 1111.

Yes! And you know why your pin is not 1111? It's because your bank won't allow this.
In any good bank, changing your default pin to 1111 is prohibited. And even default PIN generation process is tuned to avoid this kind of PINs. You cannot even get pin 1111 by chance.
Do you know see the difference?

See, here's the thing: people should already know that setting their debit card to 1111 is a stupid idea.  The guy who does try it should be allowed to have his PIN as 1111, or else he'll never understand why it's a bad combo.

The reason is obviously not because "the bank won't allow this."  The reason is, literally, because it's extremely easy to guess.  As I said, hand-holding, and it needs to stop.  Bill needs to be robbed of every last of his BTC for being dumb enough not to use encryption.  You may disagree, and say something like, "Well if the devs would FORCE you to use encryption, it couldn't have happened!", but lets be honest, nobody likes to be forced, and if you wanted to use an unencrypted wallet, for whatever reason, you should have the right.  The devs shouldn't be responsible for stupidity.

[lexxus]

If you want to use a car safely, you need to know how a car is made and how it works.
If you want to use a door and a lock safely, you need to know how doors, locks and keys are made and how they work.
If you want to use bitcoin safely, you need to know how it works.

It is pretty much common sense.

I fully agree that you must know something about Bitcoin before using them. But it's too much to ask for a user to be a IT security expert just to send a payment. At least if you want a mainstream adoption.

I seriously doubt that many people know how locks work in their doors. Still they manage to use it.
I seriously doubt that many people know how engines work in their car. Still they manage to use it.

[warpio]

This whole debate is stupid, you shouldn't rely on the bitcoin client's encryption anyway. It could have bugs or backdoors or who knows what. The only way to truly be safe is to generate your transactions offline.

[lexxus]

You may disagree, and say something like, "Well if the devs would FORCE you to use encryption, it couldn't have happened!", but lets be honest, nobody likes to be forced, and if you wanted to use an unencrypted wallet, for whatever reason, you should have the right.  The devs shouldn't be responsible for stupidity.

I never talked about forcing someone to use encryption. There must be an option for advanced users to turn it off. But by default it must be on.
Compare 2 options:

1. banks sending out credit cards with the same default PIN 1111 and allow you to change it
2. banks sending out credit cards with random default PIN and allow you to change it to 1111

I hope this shows the difference.

[justusranvier]

Storing private keys on a computer that is connected to the Internet is suitable only for a trivial amount of funds.

Everything else should be stored offline.

[lexxus]

This whole debate is stupid, you shouldn't rely on the bitcoin client's encryption anyway. It could have bugs or backdoors or who knows what. The only way to truly be safe is to generate your transactions offline.

I don't want to be sarcastic but this is the same as:

This whole debate is stupid, you shouldn't rely on the doors in your home anyway. It could be lockpiced or just broken or who knows what. The only way to truly be safe is to dig yourself underground as deep as possible.

[Rampion]

This whole debate is stupid, you shouldn't rely on the bitcoin client's encryption anyway. It could have bugs or backdoors or who knows what. The only way to truly be safe is to generate your transactions offline.

I don't want to be sarcastic but this is the same is:

This whole debate is stupid, you shouldn't rely on the doors in your home anyway. It could be lockpiced or just broken or who knows what.

True, this is why most of the people do not have A LOT of money in one drawer in their houses unless they have some REAL security. Most of the people have 95% of their money in banks, security boxes, etc.

[warpio]

This whole debate is stupid, you shouldn't rely on the bitcoin client's encryption anyway. It could have bugs or backdoors or who knows what. The only way to truly be safe is to generate your transactions offline.

I don't want to be sarcastic but this is the same as:

This whole debate is stupid, you shouldn't rely on the doors in your home anyway. It could be lockpiced or just broken or who knows what. The only way to truly be safe is to dig yourself underground as deep as possible.

no, I'm pretty sure using an offline computer is not the same as digging yourself deep underground.

using an offline computer buried deep underground, or burying a vault of cash deep underground, THAT would be the same level of security as digging yourself deep underground.

[lexxus]

True, this is why most of the people do not have A LOT of money in one drawer in their houses unless they have some REAL security. Most of the people have 95% of their money in banks, security boxes, etc.

True, but the problem is that nothing in Bitcoin clients facilitates this.

Just a rough example: there can be a popup window saying "You are storing 1000 BTC on unencrypted wallet. It's not secure. Do you want to transfer them to a paper wallet and print 10 copies of it?" with buttons, "Yes", "No", "Remind me later". And yet again: this is for regular users. Advanced users always can turn it off.

[lexxus]

no, I'm pretty sure using an offline computer is not the same as digging yourself deep underground.

using an offline computer buried deep underground, or burying a vault of cash deep underground, THAT would be the same level of security as digging yourself deep underground.

The difference is that you are treating bitcoin as gold 2.0. I'm treating it as a mean of payment.  In this case it is exactly the same as digging yourself deep underground.

[Rampion]

True, this is why most of the people do not have A LOT of money in one drawer in their houses unless they have some REAL security. Most of the people have 95% of their money in banks, security boxes, etc.

True, but the problem is that nothing in Bitcoin clients facilitates this.

Just a rough example: there can be a popup window saying "You are storing 1000 BTC on unencrypted wallet. Do you want to transfer them to a paper wallet and print 10 copies of it?" with buttons, "Yes", "No", "Remind me later". And yet again: this is for regular users. Advanced users always can turn it off.

This is a very old debate. Use the search. We all know that Bitcoin is not noob friendly. Your grandma won't even be able to understand it. But, it's still improving with time, step by step.

And yes, devs know this and they are trying to find the best ways to improve both user-friendliness and Bitcoin-QT built in security.

[lexxus]

This is a very old debate. Use the search. We all know that Bitcoin is not noob friendly. Your grandma won't even be able to understand it. But, it's still improving with time, step by step.

And yes, devs know this and they are trying to find the best ways to improve both user-friendliness and Bitcoin-QT built in security.

Yes, I know. I just wanted to stress it once again as I believe it's important.

[daemonfox]

A wise person taught me something a long time ago... and it stuck.

Locks only keep HONEST PEOPLE HONEST.

A thief will break any lock they know how to... even if there is not anything to take sometimes... just for the lulz.

As for the encryption by default argument, I suspect we would have 100X the "I can't get into my wallet anymore I lost my password" threads than we do now. The bank REQUIRES a PIN or passcode because THEY ARE THE INTERMEDIARY WHO STORES YOUR FUNDS... in Bitcoin there is no intermediary... YOU ARE THE BANK THEREFORE IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO USE THE TOOLS YOU HAVE BEEN PROVIDED... i.e. use encryption, follow the tutorial for offline wallets and for god sake join the 201X's and L2 keep your PC safe... not a hard concept... just requires a little reading and effort.

If my 55 yr old mother can pick up a computer for the first time 5 yrs ago and teach her self how you use the internet, webmail, antivirus and antimalware programs, social media and online banking... the rest of us under 30 have no excuse.

[warpio]

no, I'm pretty sure using an offline computer is not the same as digging yourself deep underground.

using an offline computer buried deep underground, or burying a vault of cash deep underground, THAT would be the same level of security as digging yourself deep underground.

The difference is that you are treating bitcoin as gold 2.0. I'm treating it as a mean of payment.  In this case it is exactly the same as digging yourself deep underground.

Not really, it's very simple to use your bitcoins for payment even from an offline computer. It's just a matter of sending the transaction from the offline client to an online client. Still MUCH easier than moving gold around.