Startup says it can access $235M in locked bitcoin — but owner says ‘no thanks’

[larry_vw_1955]

https://protos.com/startup-says-it-can-access-235m-in-locked-bitcoin-but-owner-says-no-thanks/

The drive in question belongs to a Swiss crypto entrepreneur named Stefan Thomas. Thomas received the Bitcoin in 2011 for creating a video titled ‘What is Bitcoin?’ However, shortly thereafter, he lost the piece of paper on which he’d written the password. Since then, he’s used up eight of the 10 password attempts afforded to him by the IronKey before it erases the keys — and access to the fortune — forever.

I guess my question is, why would someone want to own a device that self destructs like that? More often than not, the only thing its going to cause is a huge inconvenience to the person that owns it. This isn't the first story I've heard like this either.

I think this type of device has gone out of style though but i could be wrong.

[libert19]

I think this type of device has gone out of style though but i could be wrong.

Device might have gone but on mobiles security is still same, you can set your phone to wipe itself after certain number of incorrect unlock attempts.

[adaseb]

It’s a security thing. Would you want your iPhone to give unlimited tries where the thief will just keep trying every code? Obviously not. Hence why it’s has a self destruct option.

I understand why he stored it on there. In case someone took the usb which would of been rare but him forgetting a PIN which he set 13 years ago is more common.

[mk4]

Similar to hardware wallets — the device will erase all memory if you get 3-5 guesses wrong. Why? Imagine if you hardware wallet got stolen; would you want the thief to have unlimited amounts of guesses? Exactly.

[Tytanowy Janusz]

It’s a security thing. Would you want your iPhone to give unlimited tries where the thief will just keep trying every code? Obviously not. Hence why it’s has a self destruct option.

Only it makes sense in the case of a smartphone and compromising photos on it. Of course, it would be better for a thief not to have them, because he can use them for blackmail or publish them on the Internet. Another issue is the only copy of the private key. In this case, whether it is destroyed by the device or used by a thief, the effect is the same for you - loss of crypto.

A difficult password and a time limit of 1 attempt per day is a better solution. There is always hope that the thief will be caught and the device will be recovered.

[pinggoki]

I guess my question is, why would someone want to own a device that self destructs like that? More often than not, the only thing its going to cause is a huge inconvenience to the person that owns it. This isn't the first story I've heard like this either.

I think this type of device has gone out of style though but i could be wrong.

That's cause at that time that they bought that device was a trend and probably it looks cool at that time to have that kind of storage device where if you're wrong then it's going to lock you out, I think that's still being used by people that are paranoid about their security today and that kind of security will definitely not go out of style imo. The people that have bought those didn't really knew at the time of the purchase that they're going to losing the password to that device so you really can't blame them, being complacent for too long almost always makes someone shocked when the thing that they're trying to prepare for happens. This is just my suspicion but I feel like the reason Stefan didn't accept the help is probably there are other things there that he don't want that company to see or he just don't want to break promise on the first people that have offered help breaking that lock.

[Doan9269]

I guess my question is, why would someone want to own a device that self destructs like that? More often than not, the only thing its going to cause is a huge inconvenience to the person that owns it. This isn't the first story I've heard like this either.

Maybe we should assumed that then, people were not that exposed on various means to safekeep their bitcoin on the wallet, probably only few understand the difference between the various wallet kinds we have and why they shouldn't use some by completely avoiding them, secondly, the means used in backing up his password isn't secured enough, backing up on a paper can easily get destructed, then there were no advanced research like the use of washers, metalic iron sheet, stainless steel or over means to safely secure the password or seeds.

I think this type of device has gone out of style though but i could be wrong.

It may still be in existence, but by now, people would have just understand the reason why it's not safe for their use when there are better alternatives.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

It’s a security thing. Would you want your iPhone to give unlimited tries where the thief will just keep trying every code? Obviously not. Hence why it’s has a self destruct option.

I understand why he stored it on there. In case someone took the usb which would of been rare but him forgetting a PIN which he set 13 years ago is more common.

Well, i might be wrong though, but for some mobile devices, like the one i currently use, i have not seen the self-destruct feature, what i see here is that, if you enter a wrong pin or password 3 times, the device will start extending the time to which it will give you an opportunity to try again.

For example, if i enter the wrong pin or password 3 times consecutively, then the device will further lock itself and ask me to try unlocking it again in the next 5 minutes, and if the 5 minutes elapse and i enter a wrong pin or password again, the device will lock itself again and ask me to try again in the next 1 hour, and if after 1 hour, i try again with still a wrong pin or password, the device will again lock itself and ask me to try again in the next 3 hours.

This can continue until it gets to a stage where the device will tell you to try again after 1 year, 2 years, even 5 years or format the device by yourself if you can't wait for that long, with a "Reset Device" button made available to you at this stage.

I think this is better than a device formatting itself after 10 pins or passwords are entered incorrectly.

[Lucius]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5471475.0

@larry_vw_1955, why a new topic when there is already a discussion on the same topic?

[Blitzboy]

Security and decentralization are two ideas that are at the heart of crypto. This extreme need for protection is shown by devices like IronKey. But heres where it gets mind-boggling: whats the point of having top-tier security if the user experience falls apart? We're talking about losing access to huge amounts of money because you forgot your login. Thats not safety; thats the start of an existential problem!

I can see why people would want ultra-secure gadgets, especially in the crypto world. But there has to be a balance. Crypto users and fans need to carefully weigh the pros and cons. Does it really worth the stress? Theres a huge hole in user-centered design, even though some might argue in favor of such strict security measures. Devices like this might be fading away, but the scars they leave behind? Those linger.

[so98nn]

Hmm, just not the right device to work with I guess. A self-destruct feature is a nightmare and the last thing I want as a security protocol. Why would I bother myself with the thought that if I ever lose my keys, my device will kill itself and erase all the data on it? Imagine the pain of losing 250 million dollars all at once. Is that some sick joke? What he was thinking and what were the odds of this happening with the bitcoin holder? Plus what he was thinking when he knew that the device is capable of such high level of security. He should have kept it so secure after such realization that we wouldn't have been discussing this. Man whats done is done. Once I was not able to get into my ledger and only had a couple of thousand bucks on it my nerves were cracking, if I were this guy, I wouldn't be posting here, I would have been dead ASF. lolz.

[franky1]

if i had a scenario like this..
i would investigate the hardware. find out which chip stores the hash. and then rip the data from the chip directly.
buy 100000 other chips or an emulator to then not have the countdown worry
or
edit the other chip that has the wallet code that has the delete function. and remove that chip code and replace it for code that has no delete function

obviously risky trying to access firmware data outside of its designed 'booted up' method of data access. but its a possible better way around just booting the wallet up on a PC to only have X attempts

[larry_vw_1955]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5471475.0

@larry_vw_1955, why a new topic when there is already a discussion on the same topic?

oops i guess i didnt notice that  usually do a quick search but this time i guess i didn't search carefully enough. i'll lock this thread then and leave everyone with a final thought:

I can see why people would want ultra-secure gadgets, especially in the crypto world. But there has to be a balance. Crypto users and fans need to carefully weigh the pros and cons. Does it really worth the stress? Theres a huge hole in user-centered design, even though some might argue in favor of such strict security measures. Devices like this might be fading away, but the scars they leave behind? Those linger.

imagine you have one of those ironkeys and hid it under your mattress and one of your kids somehow comes fishing around in your bedroom while you're gone at work and finds your ironkey. they don't know what it is. they just turn it on and it asks for a password so of course they start trying random passwords for the fun of it. hope they don't try it too many times before they put it back under the mattress. 

appreciate the comments guys.