Bitcoin Forum
May 06, 2024, 03:22:48 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Electrum 2FA  (Read 348 times)
pooya87
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3444
Merit: 10550



View Profile
December 15, 2020, 04:43:49 AM
Merited by ranochigo (1)
 #21

The problem is that no matter what you do, the user ends up having to enter that passphrase or decrypt the wallet on their system. If that system is compromised then the malware has the same access as the user and unless they verify things on both sides (the system and the 2FA where the second signature is generated) that malware can still do its thing by interrupting the communication and letting the user think they are communicating with the second party while the malware is.
I think if we were to ignore the privacy part, since both Electrum and TrustedCoin would compromise privacy anyways.

Would it be better for TrustedCoin to be able to send a message containing the address to the user's 2FA app? Something like this[1] so it becomes more like a push notification. It eliminates the risks of having a malware, unless both the user's device and the computer are compromised. The main caveat that I can see from this is that it involves giving another party the transaction information which actually eliminates the privacy aspect completely at this point. At the same time, you can probably trust that the malware cannot modify whatever is displayed on the phone and that Authy or whichever provider is as trustworthy as TrustedCoin.

[1] https://gemini.com/blog/introducing-authy-push
If we are adding a new device requirement then it doesn't have to reduce privacy any more than it currently is. The setup could be like this (and works only for SegWit transactions since their txid doesn't change with signature):
1. The user creates a transaction, computes its transaction ID, signs it and sends it to the TrustedCoin servers to sign.
2. The TrustedCoin server does what it already does (verify tx,...) without signing. Instead it sends the transaction ID to that secondary device of the user (an SMS for instance) to verify before it signs it.
3. The user sees and verifies the txid is the same and approves it.
4. The TrustedCoin server receives the approval and signs the transaction and sends it back/broadcast it to the network.

To prevent the "middleman" from knowing the transaction ID and linking it to the phone owner for example we can send something else instead of the txid itself. It could be HMACSHA256 of the transaction ID by first communicating a "key" between the server and the user and compute the hash like this:
Code:
HMACSHA256(msg=txid, key=key)
Now the SMS contains a hash that can not be connected to user's tx without knowing that "hmac key" but the user can still verify it.

.
.BLACKJACK ♠ FUN.
█████████
██████████████
████████████
█████████████████
████████████████▄▄
░█████████████▀░▀▀
██████████████████
░██████████████
████████████████
░██████████████
████████████
███████████████░██
██████████
CRYPTO CASINO &
SPORTS BETTING
▄▄███████▄▄
▄███████████████▄
███████████████████
█████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████████
███████████████████
▀███████████████▀
█████████
.
1715008968
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715008968

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715008968
Reply with quote  #2

1715008968
Report to moderator
The Bitcoin software, network, and concept is called "Bitcoin" with a capitalized "B". Bitcoin currency units are called "bitcoins" with a lowercase "b" -- this is often abbreviated BTC.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1715008968
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715008968

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715008968
Reply with quote  #2

1715008968
Report to moderator
1715008968
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715008968

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715008968
Reply with quote  #2

1715008968
Report to moderator
NeuroticFish
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3668
Merit: 6379


Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!


View Profile
December 15, 2020, 09:46:11 AM
 #22

If it would have costed a couple of cents per transaction (i.e. dust) and not paid in such big bulk then maybe it would worth it. But that's not feasible and as it is it may erode the actual reputation of the wallet.
It used to be a couple of cents and was charged per transaction... then BTC became more valuable and popular... and it was no longer financially viable for TrustedCoin to be collecting all the small "dust" payments.

So, they moved to the "credit" based system that requires a bulk purchase.
TrustedCoin previously supported paying on a per-transaction (as opposed to batch) basis but had to discontinue support for this due to mining fees.

That's why I said it's not feasible. Newbies may feel cheated by that bulk payment and move away from that solution exactly after they actually paid for it.
I know that people should read before opting in, but I also know that the vast majority doesn't... However people will then read their complaints.
However, I guess that we have to agree that's a topic we have different/opposite points of view and move forward.  Wink

.
.HUGE.
▄██████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄█████████████████████▄
▄███████████████████████▄
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████▌██▌▐██▐██▐████▄███
████▐██▐████▌██▌██▌██▌██
█████▀███▀███▀▐██▐██▐█████

▀█████████████████████████▀

▀███████████████████████▀

▀█████████████████████▀

▀█████████████████▀

▀██████████▀▀
█▀▀▀▀











█▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.
CASINSPORTSBOOK
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀█











▄▄▄▄█
Abdussamad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3612
Merit: 1564



View Profile
December 15, 2020, 08:39:33 PM
 #23

they could switch to lightning. that way people can pay per transaction. this would remove the shock of that large prepayment.
bob123
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 2481



View Profile WWW
December 17, 2020, 08:29:39 PM
 #24

I know that people should read before opting in, but I also know that the vast majority doesn't... However people will then read their complaints.

Those people will hopefully also read all the replies which state that the person agreed to pay that fee by choosing to create a 2FA wallet.

I wouldn't say a majority doesn't read stuff like that. The people who don't read this when creating a wallet are the people who will lose their coins in the future due to not paying attention to the importance of their mnemonic code or OpSec.

While i don't have any reliable data for this, i don't think this applies to the majority.



they could switch to lightning. that way people can pay per transaction. this would remove the shock of that large prepayment.

But this would also mean that the user has to use the lightning network.
That would be too much for newbies and isn't necessary yet. I think this would overcomplicate things for them.

Generally, i agree with this. This would be nice feature to have.

Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!