points by NoidFonsense 5 hours ago | 0 comments
idk the whole point of hardware wallets is that they are supposed to be a simpler stack. But if you're using a closed source hardware wallet...
An old laptop with the wifi card taken out is more transparent and auditable. It just runs the ordinary open source code
But I just keep all my funds in a hot wallet, no multisig. And if I get hacked I lose it all. I think the answer is just have good security and dont get hacked. The risk of losing cryptocurrency will encourage security advances across the whole ecosystem. I think I will set up multisig eventually
[–] lxgr 5 hours ago
[–] trollbridge 4 hours ago
You don’t. It’s not networked. It doesn’t need updates.
In fact, updates are only a risk. You physically remove anything that can allow updates to happen + anything that allows wireless networking.
[–] georgeecollins 1 hour ago
How do you actually use funds like this? I mean, I know this is set aside for later. But if you had an emergency, how fast could you actually spend it?
[–] idiotsecant 12 minutes ago
Trivially. You can simply read the keys on the offline machine with your eyeballs and set up a software or hardware wallet elsewhere to access the account.
[–] NoidFonsense 3 hours ago
USB flash or QR code to transfer data
I agree my approach is not great, I dont own a lot
[–] razodactyl 4 hours ago
I wonder if wallet is not a good or bad analogy considering it would make sense to have many wallets to distribute potential damage instead of being taken out in a single hit... UX issue?
> I think the answer is just have good security and dont get hacked.
So you proposed a way to be more secure, only to discard it yourself in favor of “just having good security”?