Do you think Coinbase wallet is safe?

[TheButterZone]

They are human.

NOT GODS.

You are right.

But they do the best they can.

"The best they can" is NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER MOTHERFUCKING EVER GOOD ENOUGH.

It's good enough for hundreds of thousands of people.

Who will lose all their BTC in a Coinbase hack JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER ONLINE WALLET.

[fligen]

It's good enough for hundreds of thousands of people (458,000 source).

Accounts != active users.

[z3r0]

You present valid arguments.

One huge difference is that Coinbase provides 2-Factor Authentication.

Bitcoin user is infected with malware -> Bitcoin funds stolen.

Bitcoin user is infected with malware -> 2-Factor saves user's Coinbase funds.

Outdated. Two factor authentication is getting built into the Bitcoin protocol. In addition, there was a exploit for GOOGLE that let you bypass 2FA 10 days ago. Not just bypass 2FA, but let you access into anyone's account remotely.

Just think about it. Coming in from the field, unless you're a POI, nobody cares about your emails, nobody cares about your photos, nobody cares about your facebook. If you get hacked, it's not personal. But we DO care about your bitcoins, and honestly, I cannot thank you enough if you use an online wallet.

http://thegenesisblock.com/bitcoin-protocol-analysis-native-two-factor-authentication/

Also keep in mind that malware can bypass 2FA already (hint: I've written one that bypasses blockchain.info, would be happy to adapt it for coinbase too but from "market research" the big BTC is stored locally or bc.info). And blockchain.info (which is a hybrid wallet, IE offline wallet running in your browser) has a shit ton more security measures than coinbase.

To recap: it is impossible for online wallets to be safer than offline wallets simply because there is a bigger attack surface (web stack, employees, legal compliance, etc), and rational attackers always target the most lucrative target.

Online wallets don't magically have some bulletproof glass - they are running the a local wallet too, PLUS overhead (the online parts), PLUS employees, PLUS legal issues.

@Stake STOP. I have raised a point you cannot address. Instead of acknowledging defeat, you ignore it and jump onto something else. That is not how a rational discussion works, and I will no longer be responding to you.

You are not acting by rational rules of rhetoric, and we cannot continue.

[Stake]

It's good enough for hundreds of thousands of people (458,000 source).

Accounts != active users.

Still a large amount of people regardless.

[Stake]

You present valid arguments.

One huge difference is that Coinbase provides 2-Factor Authentication.

Bitcoin user is infected with malware -> Bitcoin funds stolen.

Bitcoin user is infected with malware -> 2-Factor saves user's Coinbase funds.

Outdated. Two factor authentication is getting built into the Bitcoin protocol. In addition, there was a exploit for GOOGLE that let you bypass 2FA 10 days ago. Not just bypass 2FA, but let you access into anyone's account remotely.

Just think about it. Coming in from the field, unless you're a POI, nobody cares about your emails, nobody cares about your photos, nobody cares about your facebook. If you get hacked, it's not personal. But we DO care about your bitcoins, and honestly, I cannot thank you enough if you use an online wallet.

http://thegenesisblock.com/bitcoin-protocol-analysis-native-two-factor-authentication/

Also keep in mind that malware can bypass 2FA already (hint: I've written one that bypasses blockchain.info, would be happy to adapt it for coinbase too but from "market research" the big BTC is stored locally or bc.info). And blockchain.info (which is a hybrid wallet, IE offline wallet running in your browser) has a shit ton more security measures than coinbase.

To recap: it is impossible for online wallets to be safer than offline wallets simply because there is a bigger attack surface (web stack, employees, legal compliance, etc), and rational attackers always target the most lucrative target.

Online wallets don't magically have some bulletproof glass - they are running the a local wallet too, PLUS overhead (the online parts), PLUS employees, PLUS legal issues.

@Stake STOP. I have raised a point you cannot address. Instead of acknowledging defeat, you ignore it and jump onto something else. That is not how a rational discussion works, and I will no longer be responding to you.

You are not acting by rational rules of rhetoric, and we cannot continue.

Didn't see your post.

They both offer pros and cons.

What it really comes down to is convenience vs. security.

Usually technical-oriented people will choose security, average people or users will choose convenience especially with Coinbase flaunting their security measures.

They have an entire page dedicated to security...

They convince the clueless people they are just as secure.

[fligen]

It's good enough for hundreds of thousands of people (458,000 source).

Accounts != active users.

Still a large amount of people regardless.

Your logical fallacy is assuming that because a lot of people do it, that is right. I hope I don't have to explain why this is wrong.

Also, respond to z3r0 first who has made a pretty much conclusive argument. I'm going to ignore you too unless you rebut to what z3r0 has said (namely, online wallets have a bigger attack surface than offline wallets and it is not *possible* for online wallets to be more secure), or acknowledge you agree.

[Stake]

It's good enough for hundreds of thousands of people (458,000 source).

Accounts != active users.

Still a large amount of people regardless.

Your logical fallacy is assuming that because a lot of people do it, that is right. I hope I don't have to explain why this is wrong.

Also, respond to z3r0 first who has made a pretty much conclusive argument. I'm going to ignore you too unless you rebut to what z3r0 has said (namely, online wallets have a bigger attack surface than offline wallets and it is not *possible* for online wallets to be more secure), or acknowledge you agree.

I'm not arguing that online wallets are safer.

I'm arguing that they can be as safe as can be.

I never said that because a lot of people do it, that it is right.

I simply stated that a lot of people put their faith into it which speaks volumes.

Just because many people murder doesn't make it right.   Same concept.

[z3r0]

You present valid arguments.

One huge difference is that Coinbase provides 2-Factor Authentication.

Bitcoin user is infected with malware -> Bitcoin funds stolen.

Bitcoin user is infected with malware -> 2-Factor saves user's Coinbase funds.

Outdated. Two factor authentication is getting built into the Bitcoin protocol. In addition, there was a exploit for GOOGLE that let you bypass 2FA 10 days ago. Not just bypass 2FA, but let you access into anyone's account remotely.

Just think about it. Coming in from the field, unless you're a POI, nobody cares about your emails, nobody cares about your photos, nobody cares about your facebook. If you get hacked, it's not personal. But we DO care about your bitcoins, and honestly, I cannot thank you enough if you use an online wallet.

http://thegenesisblock.com/bitcoin-protocol-analysis-native-two-factor-authentication/

Also keep in mind that malware can bypass 2FA already (hint: I've written one that bypasses blockchain.info, would be happy to adapt it for coinbase too but from "market research" the big BTC is stored locally or bc.info). And blockchain.info (which is a hybrid wallet, IE offline wallet running in your browser) has a shit ton more security measures than coinbase.

To recap: it is impossible for online wallets to be safer than offline wallets simply because there is a bigger attack surface (web stack, employees, legal compliance, etc), and rational attackers always target the most lucrative target.

Online wallets don't magically have some bulletproof glass - they are running the a local wallet too, PLUS overhead (the online parts), PLUS employees, PLUS legal issues.

@Stake STOP. I have raised a point you cannot address. Instead of acknowledging defeat, you ignore it and jump onto something else. That is not how a rational discussion works, and I will no longer be responding to you.

You are not acting by rational rules of rhetoric, and we cannot continue.

Didn't see your post.

They both offer pros and cons.

What it really comes down to is convenience vs. security.

Usually technical-oriented people will choose security, average people or users will choose convenience especially with Coinbase flaunting their security measures.

They have an entire page dedicated to security...

They convince the clueless people they are just as secure.

You have not read what I said. Online wallets have a bigger attack surface than offline wallets and it is NOT POSSIBLE for it to be more secure. I have also proven offline wallets can be as convenient, if not more convenient, than online wallets earlier.

Oh and their security page is a joke.

[Stake]

You present valid arguments.

One huge difference is that Coinbase provides 2-Factor Authentication.

Bitcoin user is infected with malware -> Bitcoin funds stolen.

Bitcoin user is infected with malware -> 2-Factor saves user's Coinbase funds.

Outdated. Two factor authentication is getting built into the Bitcoin protocol. In addition, there was a exploit for GOOGLE that let you bypass 2FA 10 days ago. Not just bypass 2FA, but let you access into anyone's account remotely.

Just think about it. Coming in from the field, unless you're a POI, nobody cares about your emails, nobody cares about your photos, nobody cares about your facebook. If you get hacked, it's not personal. But we DO care about your bitcoins, and honestly, I cannot thank you enough if you use an online wallet.

http://thegenesisblock.com/bitcoin-protocol-analysis-native-two-factor-authentication/

Also keep in mind that malware can bypass 2FA already (hint: I've written one that bypasses blockchain.info, would be happy to adapt it for coinbase too but from "market research" the big BTC is stored locally or bc.info). And blockchain.info (which is a hybrid wallet, IE offline wallet running in your browser) has a shit ton more security measures than coinbase.

To recap: it is impossible for online wallets to be safer than offline wallets simply because there is a bigger attack surface (web stack, employees, legal compliance, etc), and rational attackers always target the most lucrative target.

Online wallets don't magically have some bulletproof glass - they are running the a local wallet too, PLUS overhead (the online parts), PLUS employees, PLUS legal issues.

@Stake STOP. I have raised a point you cannot address. Instead of acknowledging defeat, you ignore it and jump onto something else. That is not how a rational discussion works, and I will no longer be responding to you.

You are not acting by rational rules of rhetoric, and we cannot continue.

Didn't see your post.

They both offer pros and cons.

What it really comes down to is convenience vs. security.

Usually technical-oriented people will choose security, average people or users will choose convenience especially with Coinbase flaunting their security measures.

They have an entire page dedicated to security...

They convince the clueless people they are just as secure.

You have not read what I said. Online wallets have a bigger attack surface than offline wallets and it is NOT POSSIBLE for it to be more secure. I have also proven offline wallets can be as convenient, if not more convenient, than online wallets earlier.

Oh and their security page is a joke.

I agree.  Read the above post.

[fligen]

No. Go respond to the attack surface first or acknowledge you are wrong.

[btcton]

To break the quote chain...
It all really depends on the user. If the user has 6 viruses and 81 potential threats in their hard drive, Coinbase is probably going to be more secure.

[Stake]

"We take careful measures to ensure that your bitcoin is as safe as possible." - Coinbase

That is what I agree with.  Not necessarily that Coinbase does do this, but that HTTP based wallets can do this.

It is the best they can do when comparing HTTP based wallet's security with electrum or Qt.

[z3r0]

To break the quote chain...
It all really depends on the user. If the user has 6 viruses and 81 potential threats in their hard drive, Coinbase is probably going to be more secure.

LOL??? You think it is not trivial to steal funds from online wallets with malware? It's even easier.

[fligen]

"We take careful measures to ensure that your bitcoin is as safe as possible." - Coinbase

That is what I agree with.  Not necessarily that Coinbase does do this, but that HTTP based wallets can do this.

It is the best they can do when comparing HTTP based wallet's security with electrum or Qt.

Coinbase would use client sided signing like Blockchain.info. Coinbase does not. Your bitcoin on coinbase is not as safe as possible.

You need to stop bringing up new points unless you have addressed existing ones me or z3ro has bought up. You have not sufficiently done that, and therefore I will no longer be responding until you do so. I'm sure everyone else has already disregarded everything you said due to your affiliation.

[TheButterZone]

The word "safe" should not appear within googolplex light years of the term "online wallet". Every single online wallet is as UNsafe as you can possibly store your BTC.

Even 458,000 people displaying their private keys on 458,000 billboards would be safer than any online wallet whatsoever in past, present, or future use.

[Stake]

"We take careful measures to ensure that your bitcoin is as safe as possible." - Coinbase

That is what I agree with.  Not necessarily that Coinbase does do this, but that HTTP based wallets can do this.

It is the best they can do when comparing HTTP based wallet's security with electrum or Qt.

Coinbase would use client sided signing like Blockchain.info. Coinbase does not. Your bitcoin on coinbase is not as safe as possible.

Great.  Reread my post.  I quote "Not necessarily that Coinbase does do this, but that HTTP based wallets can do this."

[Stake]

"We take careful measures to ensure that your bitcoin is as safe as possible." - Coinbase

That is what I agree with.  Not necessarily that Coinbase does do this, but that HTTP based wallets can do this.

It is the best they can do when comparing HTTP based wallet's security with electrum or Qt.

Coinbase would use client sided signing like Blockchain.info. Coinbase does not. Your bitcoin on coinbase is not as safe as possible.

You need to stop bringing up new points unless you have addressed existing ones me or z3ro has bought up.

For the second time I agree that HTTP based wallets present a larger attack surface...

I am not arguing that they don't..

[z3r0]

Great.  Reread my post.  I quote "Not necessarily that Coinbase does do this, but that HTTP based wallets can do this."

This thread is about coinbase, and all of your initial posts have been about coinbase until you realized you can't win.

You are not allowed to change the subject in the interim. We are talking about coinbase. If you want to talk about online wallets in general, make a new thread.

[fligen]

Great.  Reread my post.  I quote "Not necessarily that Coinbase does do this, but that HTTP based wallets can do this."

This thread is about coinbase, and all of your initial posts have been about coinbase until you realized you can't win.

You are not allowed to change the subject in the interim. We are talking about coinbase. If you want to talk about online wallets in general, make a new thread.

+1. You only diverted the topic so you can plug your wallet.

[wachtwoord]

They are human.

NOT GODS.

Yup, but neither am I