Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
    bitcoinhodler
    @bitcoinhodler
    This is one of the problems with the ongoing maintenance of Glacier. It needs public maintainers -- people with reputations to uphold. Anonymous maintainers like me are no good because I could put in a backdoor, steal funds, then disappear with no real harm to myself.
    At the same time, any public maintainer is basically announcing to the world that he/she has a large sum of bitcoins. This is not wise.
    As a result we have had several anonymous contributors but a dearth of public reviewers and maintainers.
    hellosa-sa
    @hellosa-sa
    I’m trying to decide between glacier and casa. I have the glacier wallet set up and successfully tested, including testing keys separately as per our discussion earlier this week.
    concern about glacier is complexity when it comes to inheritance. I wrote a five page detailed letter to my loved ones already but still have concerns that they would be able to figure it out without contacting an outsider with technical ability.
    bitcoinhodler
    @bitcoinhodler
    With Casa, they would also have to contact an outsider (Casa), no?
    hellosa-sa
    @hellosa-sa
    Casa can mitigate those risks, but has a separate set of risks. I don’t like that it’s closed source (can they know my private keys?) I don’t like that they send me hardware wallets. I don’t like that It’s not anonymous
    I’m thinking I should use glacier and hope not to die before a better solution comes out
    And provide an exceptional set of instructions to the best of my ability to my non-technical family
    bitcoinhodler
    @bitcoinhodler
    I also have concerns about inheritance. I've written a similar letter. One thing I've considered is developing and documenting a low-security withdrawal process for use if all else fails. Glacier is fairly straightforward single-address multisig. The complexity lies in doing it all securely, using the offline quarantined laptops.
    hellosa-sa
    @hellosa-sa
    That’s a good idea. I think these should be uploaded to glacier in template form
    I meant to say included in the protocol as an appendix or something
    bitcoinhodler
    @bitcoinhodler
    One thing I wrote in my letter was to contact Casa or Unchained Capital for professional help. I'm sure that, for a fee, they can help people recover bitcoins stored with Glacier, and they are much more trustworthy than some rando on bitcointalk.
    hellosa-sa
    @hellosa-sa
    That’s a good idea
    hellosa-sa
    @hellosa-sa
    As a Glacier user, short of ability to audit code for myself, what could give me more confidence that the software packages glacier relies on, including glacierscript, are not compromised such that someone may already know my private keys?
    hellosa-sa
    @hellosa-sa
    With Glacier we aren’t supposed to trust the factory hardware, but we are supposed to use a variety of software packages to execute the protocol
    bitcoinhodler
    @bitcoinhodler
    Part of it comes from trusting the review process of Glacier, but a big part comes from limiting the attack surface. If someone were able to compromise GlacierScript, there's not much they could do, since GlacierScript has no control over where its inputs come from, or where its outputs go to. After building a transaction with GlacierScript, you scan out the transaction and send it to coinb.in for validation and broadcast.
    So in order for the attacker to extract any info, they would need to compromise both GlacierScript (at the time you build your APP USBs), and coinb.in (at the time you build your withdrawal).
    Although -- there is one form of attack that might be possible, a "chosen nonce attack", where the signatures in the transaction can reveal a part of your private key. If the attacker could compromise GlacierScript to create such signatures, they could scan the blockchain for your withdrawals and possibly determine your private key. Since Glacier reuses addresses, this could be effective.
    I don't think such an attack is possible IF you use an uncompromised Bitcoin Core for signing transactions. And GlacierScript does so, and it has been reviewed and audited by many people (including myself), so I am confident in its security.
    Note: any wallet system will have the same kinds of attack vectors. In this regard, Glacier is better than any other system I'm aware of.
    hellosa-sa
    @hellosa-sa
    Thanks for that explanation. Which software package is responsible for generating the private keys?
    bitcoinhodler
    @bitcoinhodler
    Good question. That comes from GlacierScript itself, specifically this code here: https://github.com/GlacierProtocol/GlacierProtocol/blob/bda9582eda7280f6b154d63eb1c5359ab76fe369/glacierscript.py#L635
    Which, if compromised, could generate keys known to the attacker.
    hellosa-sa
    @hellosa-sa
    But in your view, have even the latest releases Of Glacier been reviewed thoroughly enough to support the idea that the code remains well-reviewed? I know many people reviewed and commented on earlier versions, but that enthusiasm from some of the other contributors dropped off over time. What would keep someone from slipping something malicious into the code now that not as many people are looking? Are all modifications to the code, however small, closely monitored?
    bitcoinhodler
    @bitcoinhodler
    The code that is currently released in Glacier has been thoroughly reviewed, yes.
    bitcoinhodler
    @bitcoinhodler
    You can look at the history of PRs to confirm this: https://github.com/GlacierProtocol/GlacierProtocol/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
    hellosa-sa
    @hellosa-sa
    Not specifically a Glacier question, but 2-of-4 is the default, or at least the example, in the protocol. Is there any good discussion published on how to best decide which m-of-n scheme to choose based on different user circumstances?
    bitcoinhodler
    @bitcoinhodler
    IIRC Glacier recommends 2-of-5 if you are entrusting keys to other people. But generally no, I'm not aware of any such discussion.
    hellosa-sa
    @hellosa-sa
    For anyone who might have private keys stored in bank safe deposit boxes as part of their Glacier Protocol, here's something to consider - I was granted access to my safe deposit box yesterday while wearing a medical mask. I was never asked to remove the mask so that they could verify my identity. Granted, I did still have to show my ID and had to have the key to my box, but it was still a bit shocking. Any person with similar physical characteristics to me could have pulled this off if they had my ID and safe key. This helped me understand that bank safe deposit boxes aren't as secure as I once believed them to be.
    bitcoinhodler
    @bitcoinhodler
    I have tested GlacierScript with Bitcoin Core v0.20.0rc2 (upcoming release). No changes needed. (Although, thanks to bug #38, Glacier is broken anyway, and nobody seems to care.)
    634-5789
    @634-5789
    I failed to withdraw a recent utxo from a 0.91beta glacier address. Is there a known compatibility issue? Older utxos work fine.
    634-5789
    @634-5789
    KeyError: ‘addresses‘ when entering the raw transaction of said utxo.
    634-5789
    @634-5789
    The output that’s not working was generated by a wasabi wallet.
    634-5789
    @634-5789
    The transaction has a segwit output. I think Bitcoin Core 0.14 can’t handle this, right?
    634-5789
    @634-5789
    Guess I have to go through updating to the latest Bitcoin Core. Thanks for this https://gist.github.com/bitcoinhodler/8be823fae7b46e924caa594abdde3bd0 @bitcoinhodler you contribution is very much appreciated.
    hellosa-sa
    @hellosa-sa
    @bitcoinhodler I second the appreciation for your contributions. If you are accepting btc donations I’d be happy to send one for the help you provided me and others. I would encourage others to do the same. We need to keep this project going and up to date
    bitcoinhodler
    @bitcoinhodler
    I believe you encountered GlacierProtocol/GlacierProtocol#14
    bitcoinhodler
    @bitcoinhodler
    No donations needed, but I appreciate the gesture. What this project needs is a public maintainer with a reputation to uphold. And more coders to review pull requests.
    634-5789
    @634-5789
    Wasn't Jameson Lopp involved lately? He'd meet the requirements for a public maintainer.
    And thanks for pointing out issue #14, must be this. I'll test it later this week.
    bitcoinhodler
    @bitcoinhodler
    Lopp was involved for a few minutes but hasn't been seen in months.
    I've added a warning to my gist to be careful and do your own research. Don't blindly trust those instructions. They have not been reviewed by the wider Glacier community (if there is such a thing) and if I wanted to be malicious I could direct you to download a hacked Bitcoin Core that sends all your coins to me.
    hellosa-sa
    @hellosa-sa
    Can glacier wallet send to a bech32 address?
    634-5789
    @634-5789
    @hellosa-sa Not with its current release because this still uses Bitcoin Core 0.13.x. If you update the app USB following @bitcoinhodler‘s gist you‘ll be able to send to bech32 addresses. I tested this. https://gist.github.com/bitcoinhodler/8be823fae7b46e924caa594abdde3bd0
    hellosa-sa
    @hellosa-sa
    @634-5789 thanks for this info. I followed these steps to install 0.19.0.1 on my initial setup of glacier, so i should be good. did you send a succesful tx from glacier to bech32 address after upgrading to Bitcoin 0.19.0.1?
    634-5789
    @634-5789
    Yes, I did.
    bitcoinhodler
    @bitcoinhodler
    I've tested Glacier with the upcoming Bitcoin Core 0.21 release. We require changes to be compatible. I opened a new PR: GlacierProtocol/GlacierProtocol#80
    This only affects creating new App USBs. If you already have App USBs, or if you use my gist (which installs Bitcoin Core v0.19.0.1) to create new App USBs, this does not affect you, and I know of no advantage to upgrading.
    634-5789
    @634-5789
    Thanks for keeping us updated. I tested your gist recently against 0.20.1 and can confirm that it works if this is of anyone's interest.