4 ms·

> And that's largely because of the lack of regulation that so many cryptocurrency fans tout. In next sentence they will tell you, that you shouldn't have kept

> And that's largely because of the lack of regulation that so many cryptocurrency fans tout. In next sentence they will tell you, that you shouldn't have kept the private keys at the exchange. Use your own wallet and keep your copy of the Blockchain.

lottin 4y ago
Your "own wallet" is just a piece of software, so it could potentially steal your "coins" could it not?
- wizeman 4y ago
  Hardware wallets, which are recommended for holding significant amounts of cryptocurrency, are designed so that even if your normal computing devices get hacked or trojaned, the software running on them cannot steal the coins. This is because the private keys are securely stored in the hardware wallet, which never reveals them to the outside world. The user has to physically confirm a transfer on the hardware wallet itself before funds can be spent (which is why they usually have either a small touchscreen or a non-touch screen plus physical buttons).
  - lottin 4y ago
    > The user has to physically confirm a transfer on the hardware wallet And once the user has confirmed the transfer, the software could send the coins to a different address, right?
    - wizeman 4y ago
      > And once the user has confirmed the transfer, the software could send the coins to a different address, right? No, the destination address and amount to send need to be confirmed on the hardware wallet. The hardware wallet cryptographically signs the entire transaction with the private key, so the software in the user's computer or mobile phone cannot change the transaction without the signature becoming invalid.
      - lottin 4y ago
        The software in the user's computer can't, but the software in the hardware wallet can. It's probably more secure than running the software on a conventional computer, this I can see.
        LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        The biggest problem probably isn't modifying the transaction, which is pretty easy to catch, but using predictable keys in the hardware or somehow leaking bits of the key in the transaction. This way they could watch all the value stored in their wallets and steal whatever they wanted by making it look like you did it yourself when one had a large enough balance to be useful.
krzyk 4y ago
Basic common sense, not your keys not your coins.
- freejazz 4y ago
  Yet, not a legal position. If it wasn't your coins, SBF taking them to do whatever he wanted with them would not be illegal.
  - wizeman 4y ago
    The point is that the holder(s) of the cryptographic keys is the only one(s) that can effectively manage (and transfer) the coins on the blockchain. When you transfer the coins to a crypto exchange, the exchange becomes the holder of the keys and therefore you run into the risk of the crypto exchange mismanaging the coins, getting hacked, losing them, etc. This can't happen if you securely hold the keys yourself (with a proper hardware wallet, seed backups and a reasonable amount of OPSEC). But even in the case the crypto exchange is holding your coins (or they get stolen), legally, the coins are still yours, of course (well, unless the crypto exchange goes through bankruptcy proceedings, I suppose). But you run the risk of never getting them back even if they are legally yours. Which is why it's better to hold them yourself if you can.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      Thanks for explaining something to me that I did not require explanation of
      - wizeman 4y ago
        > Thanks for explaining something to me that I did not require explanation of It didn't seem like you understood the value of the expression "not your keys, not your coins", because you argued for the legal position, which implied that the legal position was more significant and that holding the keys didn't have as much value (even though it's the only one that actually ensures that you don't lose the coins). Another interpretation is that you understood "not your keys, not your coins" literally, because you said (paraphrasing) "no, in fact they are your coins, otherwise stealing them wouldn't be illegal". Which implies that you did not understand the meaning and utility of the expression. So maybe I misinterpreted you, or maybe you didn't express yourself as well as you think you did. Either way, you're welcome.
calimac 4y ago

lottin 4y ago

Your "own wallet" is just a piece of software, so it could potentially steal your "coins" could it not?

wizeman 4y ago
Hardware wallets, which are recommended for holding significant amounts of cryptocurrency, are designed so that even if your normal computing devices get hacked or trojaned, the software running on them cannot steal the coins. This is because the private keys are securely stored in the hardware wallet, which never reveals them to the outside world. The user has to physically confirm a transfer on the hardware wallet itself before funds can be spent (which is why they usually have either a small touchscreen or a non-touch screen plus physical buttons).
- lottin 4y ago
  > The user has to physically confirm a transfer on the hardware wallet And once the user has confirmed the transfer, the software could send the coins to a different address, right?
  - wizeman 4y ago
    > And once the user has confirmed the transfer, the software could send the coins to a different address, right? No, the destination address and amount to send need to be confirmed on the hardware wallet. The hardware wallet cryptographically signs the entire transaction with the private key, so the software in the user's computer or mobile phone cannot change the transaction without the signature becoming invalid.
    - lottin 4y ago
      The software in the user's computer can't, but the software in the hardware wallet can. It's probably more secure than running the software on a conventional computer, this I can see.
      - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        The biggest problem probably isn't modifying the transaction, which is pretty easy to catch, but using predictable keys in the hardware or somehow leaking bits of the key in the transaction. This way they could watch all the value stored in their wallets and steal whatever they wanted by making it look like you did it yourself when one had a large enough balance to be useful.

krzyk 4y ago

Basic common sense, not your keys not your coins.

freejazz 4y ago
Yet, not a legal position. If it wasn't your coins, SBF taking them to do whatever he wanted with them would not be illegal.
- wizeman 4y ago
  The point is that the holder(s) of the cryptographic keys is the only one(s) that can effectively manage (and transfer) the coins on the blockchain. When you transfer the coins to a crypto exchange, the exchange becomes the holder of the keys and therefore you run into the risk of the crypto exchange mismanaging the coins, getting hacked, losing them, etc. This can't happen if you securely hold the keys yourself (with a proper hardware wallet, seed backups and a reasonable amount of OPSEC). But even in the case the crypto exchange is holding your coins (or they get stolen), legally, the coins are still yours, of course (well, unless the crypto exchange goes through bankruptcy proceedings, I suppose). But you run the risk of never getting them back even if they are legally yours. Which is why it's better to hold them yourself if you can.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    Thanks for explaining something to me that I did not require explanation of
    - wizeman 4y ago
      > Thanks for explaining something to me that I did not require explanation of It didn't seem like you understood the value of the expression "not your keys, not your coins", because you argued for the legal position, which implied that the legal position was more significant and that holding the keys didn't have as much value (even though it's the only one that actually ensures that you don't lose the coins). Another interpretation is that you understood "not your keys, not your coins" literally, because you said (paraphrasing) "no, in fact they are your coins, otherwise stealing them wouldn't be illegal". Which implies that you did not understand the meaning and utility of the expression. So maybe I misinterpreted you, or maybe you didn't express yourself as well as you think you did. Either way, you're welcome.

calimac 4y ago