Cake wallet - Discussion and News

[satscraper]

Is this really a vulnerability in Cake Wallet? As far as I understand, the issue affects any wallet that connects to public Electrum servers. All you need to do to avoid falling for it is double-check the recipient addresses if you want to bump the transaction fee. That said, it's crucial to verify the full address, not just the last few characters.

This vulnerability affects all wallets that can connect to random servers using the Electrum protocol, so it applies to Cake as well. That said, it has already been fixed.

Meanwhile, the Cake developers continue their efforts to make improvements and fix bugs. Today, they  dropped new release, namely, version 6.5.2.

[Kruw]

Meanwhile, the Cake developers continue their efforts to make improvements and fix bugs. Today, they  dropped new release, namely, version 6.5.2.

Zero description on the release notes, how unprofessional. When is Cake Wallet going to stop KYCing their users and confiscating their funds?

[NotATether]

Zero description on the release notes, how unprofessional. When is Cake Wallet going to stop KYCing their users and confiscating their funds?

This is why people should run a private AML check on their coins before they send them to any service, especially if it's a large amount they can't afford to lose.

[satscraper]

Meanwhile, the Cake developers continue their efforts to make improvements and fix bugs. Today, they  dropped new release, namely, version 6.5.2.

Zero description on the release notes, how unprofessional. When is Cake Wallet going to stop KYCing their users and confiscating their funds?

Yeah, the release readout is very short and skimpy.

 I had the quick look on relevant commits and got the impression that  the changes appear to be mostly internal hardening and  stabilization of some features including for example better exception handling and  Lightning scanning . Nothing relevant to new features or security. Sure, not everyone will dig into commits.

[Kruw]

This is why people should run a private AML check on their coins before they send them to any service, especially if it's a large amount they can't afford to lose.

 And what if Cake disagrees with the results of the user's coin check and confiscates their coins anyways? It's best just to not use Cake Wallet at all since they scam their users with this method.

[NotATether]

And what if Cake disagrees with the results of the user's coin check and confiscates their coins anyways? It's best just to not use Cake Wallet at all since they scam their users with this method.

Yeah that's a big problem. The different checkers can wildly disagree with each other and other platforms can show you a different result because they're not all required to be the same.

[satscraper]

This is why people should run a private AML check on their coins before they send them to any service, especially if it's a large amount they can't afford to lose.

I agree with this.

I run for this purpose my own AML checker that reads my Bitcoin Core node ^{having  among others} following entries in   bitcoin.config:

Code:

server=1
txindex=1
blockfilterindex=1

Here are a few of checker's features:

The local database contains around 45 million BTC addresses, grouped by risk category. Each checked address is scored based on its distance from risky address. The sender-depth setting is adjustable. If the local database has no entry for distant address, the checker retrieves the relevant data from the WalletExplorer API.

Example of screening result: