Message-ID: <4DFA4A41.70104@covertinferno.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:24:01 +0200
From: phantomcircuit <phantomcircuit@covertinferno.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110608 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <BANLkTimZ5j7=1G89uRO9f7fHPdmDMpLMqg@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimV+0mSqqmLYJeTdvxhM2PjtyXXMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201106161418.48804.luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <201106161418.48804.luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Development priorities
Precedence: list

On 06/16/11 20:18, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Thursday, June 16, 2011 1:59:56 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> 2) Wallet security.
>> Agreed, though security professionals (and luke-jr) are already
>> pointing out the wallet crypto mainly eliminates a bit of bad PR,
>> rather than being a major crime deterrent.
>>
>> zooko on IRC had a pretty good suggestion:  introduce a built-in
>> facility for air-gapped wallets (multiple wallets), so that loss of
>> your everyday transactional wallet does not mean loss of everything.
> Even if you do this, a cracker can still simply send your encrypted wallet to 
> himself, secure-delete your local one, kill your client, and demand you 
> publish your password if you want some portion of your coins back.
>
> I'm not sure there's *any* defense for an insecure PC. Maybe Bitcoin will end 
> up forcing people to reconsider their priorities when it comes to security...
Jeff's scratch off branch modified to use email (as unique salt) and
password would eliminate the need for a static wallet.dat for 99% of the
userbase.  This seems like a much better solution than encryption. 
(Although obviously it's still vulnerable to key loggers).