/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>21103116
ledger nano s, buy a three pack and give two away

>>21103116
I like secux for its interface and that it can hold any ERC20 without issue.
However it's a new brand out of Asia and I'm probably going to get scammed somehow.

>>21103116

>>21103116
no reason to have a hardware wallet unless you're holding absolute trash (anything not ETH). If you're holding ETH you want to be interacting with smart contracts.

>>21103211
then what sort of wallets do yo recommend if not hardware?

>>21103211
So make your ledger interact with smart contracts via metamask faggot

>>21103116
How soon do you put coins into the wallet? Wouldn't it be best to let it sit on an exchange?

>>21103527
no. The only reason your money is safe in a normal bank is because money is magical numbers that can be reprinted out of nothing and given back to you. Most exchanges make no such promise with your crypto. If they somehow lose your keys, or if they are hacked, you are fucked, they can't just print more like banks do. Crypto really is digital gold and there is a limited supply

never keep any amount you're not willing to lose on an exchange

>>21103116
You dont exactly need one. They are just time consuming novelty items. A paper is sufficient. That said if you really really need one then get the elipal titan. At least it has unique security features abd premium build quality. https://youtu.be/PldTJcu3_ic

>>21104337
How would you update the firmware?
What if you drop it or the camera breaks?

>>21104519
my concern with these hardware wallets is they're becoming complex with a lot of irreplaceable parts and also complex OSes. Hardware wallets should be as simple as possible, not an airgapped smartphone. The more complexity that gets introduced the more room there is for exploits. Plus the source isn't open on a lot of them, it's impossible to know what it's actually doing with your data

A smartphone. No one is going to hack your phone for fucking magical coins you paranoid autists.

>>21103116
Coldcard is all you need
https://youtu.be/QaQVJTCFeEY

How do I stop being paranoid about updates? How can I be sure the next update isn't someone in France at Ledger fucking everyone up with said update?

Especially after all of these recent security breaches?

>>21103318
why even have a hardware wallet if it's hot?

>>21104794
except for when they do
sim swap

airgapped linux box

>>21104794
would you carry around $10k/$100k/$1m worth of gold in your pocket every day?

>>21104929
hardware wallets prevent your private key from being exposed to the internet connected devices, that makes them more secure than a wallet on your phone or pc where an attacker could potentially get your key should they gain access to your device

>>21103527
what this anon said>>21103868
You're fucked if it gets hacked. That being said, I'm still relatively new to crypto, and I'm trying to figure out the best wallet to get.

>>21104337
how do fees work with paper wallets?

>>21105072
>hardware wallets prevent your private key from being exposed to the internet connected devices
then it would be impossible to connect it to metamask lmao obviously it is designed to expose itself to some internet connected devices

>>21105107
>how do fees work with paper wallets?
what do you mean?

>>21105129
the private key isnt exposed to metamask. you have to authorize every trx you make on the trezor itself. It signs the transaction, and then hands the signed transaction to metamask.

>trusting private actors with implementing a perfectly fine open source algorithm
Ngmi.

>>21105215
trezor is opensource faggot

>>21105107
you set the fee when you create a transaction. To create a transaction from a paper wallet you will need to import the key into an airgapped PC, create and sign the transaction, and then move this transaction to an internet connected wallet to transmit it to the blockchain

>>21105129
What hardware wallets do is sign a transaction with the private key (which is never exposed) and then sends the signed transaction back to your computer

>>21105251
i.e. it isn't cold storage because it signs messages on-chain. I don't know what you want anon, either it doesn't connect to internet devices so it doesn't work or it does and you just don't understand what cold storage is

>>21105107
>how do fees work with paper wallets?

once you spend from a paper wallet its no longer a paper wallet, as your private key will need to be accessible to some sort of hardware to sign your transactions. Fees, which are bids you put on your transactions to encourage miners to include your transactions in blocks they find, aren't impacted. Neither nodes nor miners know that you're spending from what was a paper wallet. Not that it would matter either way to the miners peeling off your fees.

>>21105307

>>21105209
so? I'm saying it isn't cold storage, not that your priv key is unencrypted (although Trezor previously did leave your priv key unencrypted and you could steal it by freezing a chip)

Trezor > Ledger

If you want security:
Trezor T + Ledger Nano X + Electrum 2/3 multisig enabled where your ledger is used as your portable device.

>>21105307
it's warm storage. Your keys are never exposed and so theoretically can never be stolen, the same as cold storage. It just automates the airgapped signing process I described

>>21105307
Hardware wallets are arguably not cold storage, but that's not what you said. You said "[if hardware wallets prevent your private key from being exposed to internet connected devices] it would be impossible to connect it to metamask"

That's 100% bullshit. The transaction is signed before it leaves the trezor, so the private key never needs to be exposed to an internet connected device. Only public data and the signed transaction are exposed.

>>21105372
see:
>>21105525

>>21105525
Look, it it's encrypted through a signature, I know how crypto works. It's not cold storage and if it didn't expose your (encrypted) priv key you couldn't use it. it's not cold storage, I'm right, go be a pedant somewhere else

https://youtu.be/fqrAzBAi64c

>>21105418
>it's warm storage. Your keys are never exposed and so theoretically can never be stolen, the same as cold storage.
this is the same as metamask lol, actually metamask is probably safer than a lot of them because you don't need to worry about hardware vulnerabilities and it's open source

>>21105695
>>21105761
>I know how crypto works
no I don't think you do

your keys are stored on your computer with metamask, which is connected to the internet. If a hacker keylogs you then steals the key file then you're done. With a hardware wallet only the signed transaction is exposed to the external device, The private key is never exposed to the external device. only the signed transaction is sent to metamask and then metamask sends it to the blockchain. An attacker cannot get your key this way

>>21105695
> if it didn't expose your (encrypted) priv key you couldn't use it

thats both wrong, and contrary to the point you were trying to make. It doesn't expose an encrypted private key. Even if it did, it wouldn't be any use to metamask etc... anyway. Even if it did, an encrypted version of your private key isn't your private key.

Learn how asymmetric encryption works, there's a good video series on Khan Academy.

>>21105761
>this is the same as metamask lol, actually metamask is probably safer than a lot of them

metamask is the thing you don't want your keys exposed to. Its (in order to be useful) installed on an internet connected device. What if the device you've installed metamask on is compromised? Hardware wallets can be compromised too, but the difference is that they require physical access to compromise. A metamask wallet can be compromised through the Internet.

what data would be needed to store bitcoin on a USB stick? if even possible

>>21105761
It's not the same as Metamask. Metamask stores your key on your pc. If I put a keylogger on your pc and caught you typing in your password, I could export your private key from Metamask.

That's not how it works with a hardware wallet. Even if I gave you my ledger and pin, and let you connect it to your machine you would not be able to know what the key is.

I fucking hate /biz/ because retards always talk confidently about something they know nothing about / have never used.

>>21105166
say for instance I buy X crypto on an exchange and i want to send it to a paper wallet for storage (or a hardware wallet). Does, and if so how much, will an exchange charge for X coins to be transferred?

>>21105997
Jesus christ. How do people like you exist

>>21103116
the best wallet is cryptosteel

>>21105997
You can think of it like this: bitcoin is stored on a network, you have an address and a key to access the network and send coins. What you would need to store on the usb is the key (not a good idea unless you encrypt it)

>>21105997
To "store" bitcoin, all you need to do is send bitcoin to a wallet, and put the private key (or a recovery seed) from that wallet on the USB. Bitcoin works a little differently from how money traditionally works. Instead of having access to a "thing" called bitcoin, your key pair is credited bitcoin in a decentralized ledger. Basically, like a trustless decentralized MySQL DB if youre familiar with that, or if not, an excel/google sheets spreadsheet. In the decentralized and trustless "excel spreadsheet" every account (public key) that has ever had a transaction is listed, along with a list of all their transactions. To find out your account/key current value, your wallet just adds up your history of transactions listed in the database.

Every node in the bitcoin network has a copy of this database, and if one node makes illegal changes (defined by the protocol, common examples include trying to spend the same coins twice, called a "double spend") then the other nodes will, by default, ignore the malicious node and its changes will be isolated from the network.

So yeah, just create a wallet:

https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet

Then export the private key from that wallet and put it on your USB stick. Remember, this is just a backup of your private key. Your private key will exist in the initial wallet as well, so if the computer you do this on is compromised, or if the wallet is malicious (you generally shouldnt have to worry about this with wallets listed on bitcoin.org) then your coins could be stolen.

Also remember that different coins have different wallets and different decentralized databases. So if you buy Ethereum, for example, you have to send it to an Ethereum address. You cant use a bitcoin wallet. (Unless its a wallet that supports both bitcoin and ethereum, as is popular today)

>>21106046
someone uninformed asking an honest question is way less annoying than someone like SSQ... who is just confidently spouting off bullshit.

>>21105129
retard

>>21105525
how is it not cold storage? there's no automated way to make a transaction, nobody has the private key. you need human interaction to sign a transaction, how is that not cold storage?

>>21106069
This. Everything else is just nigger-tier mumbo jumbo that is either connected to the internet or not open source or with a chance of being discontinued.

>>21106427
Yeah that anon is a moron. Shit's signed on the hardware and the signed tx is the only thing that comes out of it.

Paper wallet are good?

Can I just print my wallet and put it in a safe deposit box at my bank.

>>21103116
i have keepkey, trezor T, ledger s and ledger blue. just ordered a nano X. honestly nano s is the best of the 4 i have so if X is like S but a little more convenient it's worth it.

>>21106037
Exchanges usually set their own withdraw rates. These will usually be set to cover the cost of the bitcoin miner fees, as well as an additional fee that the exchange takes. These are usually, but not always, flat fees. Some exchanges eat the fees entirely, and some only make you pay the mining fee. Really just depends on the exchange. You can probably just search google for "[exchange name] fees" to get an answer for a particular exchange.

>>21106499
and then whoever gets access to your safe deposit box gets your funds

>>21103116
definite answer is ledger nano s + trezor combination (split funds) and have it stored on safes on different locations + smartphone for payments with a small % of your funds

>>21106487
How are you going to sign a transaction with cryptosteel?

>>21106478
the wallet could have been compromised before it arrived at your door. With actual cold storage, you generate a private key yourself on a device thats not currently connected to the internet, and preferably that never has been and never will be.

Additionally, Its possible that a malicious software might try to push a malicious firmware to your hardware wallet. You would still have to sign off on the firmware update, but a malicious actor could make a phising site/app that looks very convincingly like the one youre used to using for interacting with your hardware wallet. Every time I make a transaction or esp every time I update my firmware, I make sure to check and double check the SSL cert on the site.

I find this level of counterparty risk to be reasonable for the amount of coins I'm storing.

>>21106688
>you generate a private key yourself on a device thats not currently connected to the internet, and preferably that never has been and never will be
it can still be compromised you fucking retard unless you verified the entire architecture and soldered the cpu and everything else all by yourself

>>21106688
>>21106733
you will still need to sign transactions on it and unless you do it manually on paper, the signing process can be compromised

>>21106733
Who cares? Doesn't matter if its never connected to a network. There might be malicious code on every computer in the world ready to send your keys off to Craig Wright and it wouldn't matter if its never connected to a network to send them through.

>>21106830
it will have to be connected to the world the same way a hardware wallet is connected to the world when you need to broadcast the transaction you signed on it

>>21106808
Yeah, to sign transactions you (realistically) need to convert your paper wallet. That's the advantage of a hardware wallet. Its a good middle ground balance between usability and counterparty risk.

>>21106688
I may be wrong but I believe most HW wallets require firmware to be signed by the manufacturer or it won't run.

The supply chain attack scenario you describe where the wallet you receive in the mail is actually a fake or tampered wallet is legit... but a little too paranoid I think.

>>21106733
>Not developing an entire blockchain every morning
>Not having 70 passphrases stored in your brain
>Not knowing how to develop from scratch every wallet in existence
>Not having your own silicon valey in your back alley.

>>21106854
you don't transact from cold storage (for certain, strict definitions of 'cold storage'). Once you transact it becomes warm/hot storage.

if I were to get ledge nano s/x and trezor one, split my funds 40% (nano s) 40% (trezor one) 20% (nano x) would that be retarded?

>>21106499
stamp it onto some metal, make three copies, store them in safes. I don't think those deposit boxes are the safest option but it's probably reasonably safe

>>21106589
you would need to import the key/seed phrase into an airgapped PC. I would install tails onto a usb, download your wallet software to the tails persistent storage, then plug it into the airgapped PC, import the key or regenerate the wallet from the seed phrase, sign the transaction, copy it to a seperate USB, then delete the wallet from tails. Then import the transaction to an internet connected PC and send it to the blockchain. Do this every time you need to sign a transaction, which if it's from cold storage would probably only be a few times a year.

>>21103155
>HACKED

ok. im going to make my own ledger company. invest in 5 cent chinese flash drives then steal literally every gullible zoomer who stores all their crypto on it

>>21106901
well then when exchanges say "98% of our funds are stored in cold storage" they're lying

"cold storage" in everyday terms nowadays literally just means that human interaction is necessary for the transaction of funds. therefore a hacker cannot find an automated way to get you rid of them

>>21106879
>I may be wrong but I believe most HW wallets require firmware to be signed by the manufacturer or it won't run.

You're prob right about that, actually. My bad. So phishing attacks are prob out, tho its possible (hypothetically) that the manufacturer's signing key gets compromised.

>legit... but a little too paranoid I think.

Depends heavily on the amount of coin youre storing. If you've only got a half million dollars worth like me you're probably fine just keeping everything in a hardware wallet. Once you get over $10MM worth you probably want to think about moving a lot of it to n of m cold storage. $10MM is absolutely within the range at which counter parties may try to monitor and intercept your mail.

>>21105988
>It doesn't expose an encrypted private key
what do you think a signature is anon? holy shit /biz/ is actually dumb af lmao

>>21106904
>>21106547
>>21105417
how are you guys unaware of this do you live under a rock

trezors provide 0 defense if someone has physical access to the device. nobody has been able to publicly compromise ledger devices that are currently comercially available.

https://blog.kraken.com/post/3662/kraken-identifies-critical-flaw-in-trezor-hardware-wallets/

>>21106909
actually if it's possible to generate a QR code for the signed transaction, that would be the way to do it, I'm not sure what (if any) apps support that

>>21107044
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography

>>21106956
I was originally responding to someone who said hardware wallets aren't cold storage. My response was along the lines of "theyre arguably not, but...". The term gets used in different ways to mean different things.

>>21103191
Agreed! Sigelei is the best, for sure!

>>21106499
this is what i am looking to do.
store a paper wallet on a usb stick
seems to be the safest way to store coins offline

>>21107044
>what do you think a signature is anon?
Imagine being this confident about something you know this little about.

Like I said, there's a good video series on public key cryptography on Khan Academy. You would benefit from it.

>>21107099
you are a fucking retard who doesn't understand asymmetric encryption

>>21107162
see
>>21107160

>>21107058
I saw this information and looked further into it and the skillset required to do that is quite high and I live in a city of retards, I also do not let anyone know I have crypto and much less would let them know I have this device which would stay locked in a fireproof waterproof safe that nobody is aware of, saying all of that I do not think putting all my eggs in 1 brand wallet is the best idea and I am open to suggestions

>>21107162
>>21107192
>>21107044

sorry bro but you're a retard

>>21107162
Take a closer look at the image you just posted. Really think hard about what its trying to show you, and what problem asymmetric encryption is trying to solve.

>>21103116
Ngrave or Bc vault

>>21107232
take one class on data encryption then get back to me

>>21103116
Treasure chest filled with precious metals

>>21107222
desu my trezor t has the best design of all the hardwarewallets i have it's rly nice to use, but it's not as conviently sized as the nano and since the physical breach i just don't use it for anything except a temporal storage on rare occasions, or if they have better support for some niche coin i gotta do something with

>>21107058
just use a passphrase or reset your trezor after each use and you're safe

>>21106914
That's not how they work or what that Bitcorn fork exploit was about, read the article again

>>21107303
>just reset your trezor after each use bro

I don't trust hardware wallets or the companies you buy them from. What's the best alternative? Ideally I want some form of cold storage solution where I just need to save a seed phrase and store that in an IRL secure manner. I want to take most of my shit off exchange/metamask. Ideally something that can hold both BTC and ETH/ERC-20s

>>21107252
I don't have the energy to explain to you how priv keys are used to encrypt signatures, please read a book, or maybe rewatch your youtube video, if it's any good it will explain it

>>21107334
I'm not a degenerate day trader so I don't need to access it that often

>>21107271
what don't you understand retard

>>21107444
again, this is how EVERY WALLET WORKS
THERE ISN'T A WALLET IN EXISTENCE THAT SHOWS EXPOSES AN UNENCRYPTED PRIV KEY VIA SIGNATURE
a signature IS AN ENCRYPTED PRIV KEY, THAT'S WHAT PROVES IT'S YOU LOL
FUCKING MONKEY LOL

>>21107058
I was amazed when I saw that. And I am literally an electronic engineer with 5 years of experience in PCB design. Even I would struggle trying to emulate what they did there.

Unless you live in Silicon Valley or visit DefCon and flaunt your Trezor every day around Google's campus, you will be safe.

>>21107366
Please stop embarrassing yourself.

>>21107511
>>21107485

>>21107506
but can't some darkmarket vendor make a device that makes the process easy and sell it for $500 each

>>21107485
its an encrypted transaction decryptable with your public key, not an encrypted private key.

>>21107366
>>21107532
>>21107485
craig that's you isn't it

https://twitter.com/BitcoinMemeHub/status/1268366834287312897

>>21107573
every cryptographer ever disagrees

>>21107591
this is the real satoshi

>>21107677
but anon, that book says what I just said, in very similar words, even.

>>21107485
A software wallet stores the private key on your PC. A hacker can get access to your PC and get your key. They can't do that with a hardware wallet. How are you not understanding that. It has nothing to do with the signature

>>21107730
you must have missed the part where it says encryption is done via priv key then

>>21107677
K so you haven't explained how hardware wallets aren't safe ?? Why don't you just hack 99% of people who don't use paper wallets? Have you thought about how you could do that if they supposedly expose your keys

>>21107756
they think, or at least say that they think, that a hardware wallet needs to send your private key to an internet connected device to make a transaction. Thanks to the wonders of asymmetric encryption, they're wrong.

>>21107756
You are arguing a totally different point now. All I said was hardware wallets aren't cold storage because they interact with online devices lmao you faggots got very mad and tried to prove priv keys aren't used in signature encryption

>>21107687
you're trolling r-right? (sorry, one can never be sure on /biz/)

>>21107775
>>21107809
retards don't even know what the argument is about LOL holy shit you are all illiterate
>>21107828

>>21107766
Encryption IS done with the private key. The private key is used to encrypt the transaction. The signature is the encrypted transaction. This is done on the hardware wallet itself, and the transaction + transaction signature are sent to your internet connected device to broadcast the transaction. At no point is your private key sent to the internet connected device.

>>21107855
Yes. Craig is hilarious. Should be in prison tho.

>>21107828
>tried to prove priv keys aren't used in signature encryption
Nobody was arguing that. You were arguing that software and hardware wallets provide the same level of security and I explained why they don't

>>21106547
I repeat this is the definite answer, other answers are mostly retarded

>>21107863
>retards don't even know what the argument is about LOL holy shit you are all illiterate

>>21105695
>if it didn't expose your (encrypted) priv key you couldn't use it

Thats what this argument is about. It doesn't do that.

>>21107867
>Encryption IS done with the private key.
yes
>At no point is your private key sent to the internet connected device.
it's not sent unencrypted. anon, if the priv key wasn't encrypted in the signature, there would be NO WAY TO LINK THE PUBLIC KEY TO THE SIGNATURE LOL. if your argument is "digital signatures aren't unencrypted private keys" then you are arguing against a point no one ITT has made. the point is SO LONG AS IT IS SIGNING TRANSACTIONS IT IS NOT A COLD WALLET

I can't deal with illiterates lmao this is exhausting

>>21107938
>You were arguing that software and hardware wallets provide the same level of security
No, I said the specific benefits ONE ANON listed were the same as metamask. fucking morons are arguing over shit that isn't even part of the discussion

>>21107975
>if it didn't expose your (encrypted) priv key you couldn't use it
this is true, again, learn what a signature is lmao all signatures are encrypted priv keys because THAT IS THE FUCKNIG KEY USED TO ENCRYPT IT LMAO
>>21107677

>>21107992
>>21108052
>SO LONG AS IT IS SIGNING TRANSACTIONS IT IS NOT A COLD WALLET
Okay that's a semantic issue but sure we can agree on that definition. But you agree hardware wallets are much more secure than software wallets right?

>>21107992
>if the priv key wasn't encrypted in the signature, there would be NO WAY TO LINK THE PUBLIC KEY TO THE SIGNATURE LOL.

Wrong. The signature is of the transaction. It contains no information about the private key. The fact that it can be decrypted to match the original transaction is what proves that it was created with the private key that matches the public key.

In asymetric encryption, the private key is used for encryption of messages and the public key is used for decryption of messages. So if I have private key "AAA" with public key "BBB" and I send a message "Hello!" with a signature that reads "ABCDEFG", I can verify that the signature is A.) signed to the message and B.) signed by the private key by decrypting it with the public key and getting the original message back. At no point does the verifying party need access to the private key. Thats the whole point of asymmetric encryption.

>>21107992
>if the priv key wasn't encrypted in the signature, there would be NO WAY TO LINK THE PUBLIC KEY TO THE SIGNATURE LOL.

This is wrong. The sig does not contain the private key, encrypted or otherwise. There is no way to derive the private key from a signature.

>>21104519
the charging magnet has a micro sd slot
>>21105107
>how do fees work with paper wallets?
works the same as with every other wallet
the fees get subtracted during the transaction

>>21107555
Yeah of course. But this reminds me of a small uni group who "cracked" MiFare card's encription, the most common NFC card for metro, hotel or buses.

They could have made some money making petty crimes like toping up metro cards for half the price or stealing inside hotels (some people, including me did). But they would have been caught fairly easily (a friend of mine started babling about a guy who topped bus cards in a bar, and a few weeks later police searched that bar, I stopped doing it because of fear).

Thing is those guys could have made some petty money had they not published their article, but they would have been caught fairly easily. Instead they published that paper and got hired by that same company and made big bucks as developers.

Same thing with Trezor, you could make a thing which easily hacked people's crypto. But you would quickly get caught as you would have to start tresspassing people's houses, or make them talk where they hide their trezor. You would earn more money by publishing your article and gaining recognition and maybe get hired with a salary raise.

>>21108284
>>21108284
>There is no way to derive the private key from a signature
using current tech, yes, the encryption is way too hard to break. this is why signatures work. you should look into why people are worried about quantum computing effecting the security of encryption anon.
>>21108186
paper wallets will always be the better option

>>21108368
paper wallets will never be the better option because you have to generate the keys somewhere and this online makes it less safe than hardware wallets

>>21108401
>you have to generate the keys somewhere and this online
generate thee keys offline then? by this logic, the hardware wallets generated keys online too, and then exposed them unencrypted at the factory when they printed them out so they are twice as unsecure

Ellipal hardware wallet

>>21108368
>using current tech, yes, the encryption is way too hard to break.

why are you like this

>>21108444
if you plug back it online you will never know if your keys have been compromised, because so many components can contain malwares, not just hdds. if you keep it offline, that's called a hardware wallet.

>by this logic, the hardware wallets generated keys online too
I took the bait faggot

>>21108584
I'm talking honestly about the state of encryption in blockchain. there is a reason people are working on implementing quantum-proof encryption into chains
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography
I don't have any horse in this race. I don't own stock in any of these companies or anything. I haven't said anything wrong ITT you fags are just mad that I'm not sucking Trezors dick. guess what? blockchain isn't perfect. there are still hurdles to jump, and if saying "hardware wallets aren't cold storage" is too much for you, you are having an emotional reaction, not an intellectual one.
>>21108619
paper wallets are offline by definition anon lol if it's online it's not a paper wallet. I don't get what you are talking about

>>21108812
>I haven't said anything wrong ITT

You've repeatedly said that a signature is an encrypted private key. When that's fucking false.

>>21103116
literally any piece of paper will do

>>21108812
Hardware wallets do not send your private key to an internet connected device, encrypted or otherwise. They send a transaction signature encrypted with the private key. This is an important distinction because messages encrypted with a private key and be trivially decrypted with a public key in asymetric encryption schemes. However your private key can not be retrieved through public key decryption.

Certain quantum computing algorithms may be able to walk backwards from a signature to a private key given enough qbits. No quantum computer is known to exist that is capable of doing this (I think to break bitcoin's encryption with Shor's algorithm you need 2051 qbits)

If your argument is that a hardware wallet is just as secure as metamask because a theoretical, multi-billion dollar computer that isn't known to exist could compromise the private key of any address that has ever sent any coin anywhere regardless of when the transaction occurred and through what mechanism the transaction was signed and forwarded, then you're also arguing that using metamask is just as secure as posting your private key in this thread.

So do it, faggot.

>>21108812
you need an offline computer (an hardware wallet) to generate securely a paper wallet, based on this paper wallets are basically useless alone and only meant to complement hardware wallets; using paper wallet alone is meant to increase the value of bitcoins due to retards losing their funds by thinking that it's a good idea

>>21109033
see you think I'm arguing against signatures. you can't decrypt a private key from a signature because the encryption is too strong, not because the private key isn't encrypted in it. it has to be, because it is the third point in the asymmetric signature. if it wasn't in there, there would be no way to verify that the public key matches it lol. the public key allows you to know that yes, it was the proper private key that encrypted this message, without ever knowing that private key. with sufficient tech (i.e. quantum computing) you could theoretically obtain the private key with strong enough computation. that's just the way encryption works. this isn't an issue with today's computers, no one has enough processing power to crack modern asymmetric encryption. I don't have a problem with digital signatures. I have a problem with saying "since a hardware wallet only signs transactions it counts as cold storage". please read the convo if you want to participate

>>21109168
>If your argument is that a hardware wallet is just as secure as metamask
LOL I WAS CALLING OUT AN ANON WHO DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY HARDWARE WALLETS WERE MORE SECURE THAN REGULAR WALLETS

THE FUCKING POINTS THAT ANON POSTED WERE THE SAME AS METAMASK

I WASN'T AGREEING WITH HIM LMAO I HAVE NEVER SAID METAMASK IS MORE SECURE THAN HARDWARE WALLETS

YOU ARE ALL SO DUMB LOL