I was just reading a bit on reddit.
People are telling each other that legacy wallets are not secure anymore.
Not that they have shown any proof on it, but is there any truth to this?
I am wondering because I am asking for a friend, who has always used a legacy wallet in the paper form.
He hasnt lost any coins, yet.
But should he be worried about super computers cracking private keys?
236 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 18 Oct
https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.04956
29 bit integer broken
reply
57 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 18 Oct
Send to your friend this guide
https://darth-coin.github.io/wallets/move-btc-taproot-address-en.html
Legacy addresses are trash now.
Also if you had legacy addresses and didn't reclaim your BCH and dump it for more BTC, then you were a loser, not doubling your stash.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora OP 18 Oct
Darth, thank you for your update.
I was wanting to hear from you.
You are right, my friend should have changed his BCH to BTC, but he didnt want to move it from the address he already had.
He wasnt willing to compromise his security for petty change.
I will tell him that you think legacy addresses are trash, though.
reply
43 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner 18 Oct
related to #721468 ?
reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora OP 18 Oct
It could be.
A lot of things relate to it.
reply
51 sats \ 1 reply \ @netstatic 18 Oct
No, legacy wallets are fine. What’s more important is which software he used to generate his keys. If it was Bitcoin-QT/Bitcoin Core he’s fine
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora OP 18 Oct
I like your way of thinking!
reply
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @cryotosensei 18 Oct
You’re on a roll. Two posts in two days
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora OP 18 Oct
I only post what I like.
Im not really posting to make sats.
Different objectives haha
reply
30 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 18 Oct
I haven't heard anything about this. It certainly sounds like FUD.
reply
34 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora OP 18 Oct
That is what I am thinking, but it never hurts to ask the community experts.
reply
27 sats \ 2 replies \ @kilianbuhn 18 Oct
It's not FUD. You should upgrade from insecure addresses to modern adresses. Just like you should update your operating system to the newest version to fix security holes.
It's unfortunate but we should have never sold this idea of "forever" addresses. Idk where this idea came from in the first place, certainly not from people with a cs degree.
Even for the most optimistic people: it's foolish to think that cryptography from 20y ago is insecure but current cryptography will still be secure in 50y. Given history that would be a surprising future.
reply
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 18 Oct
Thanks
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora OP 18 Oct
I think it is a bit of both.
Updating doesnt always make it more secure.
reply
20 sats \ 5 replies \ @Bitcoiner1 18 Oct
What do you mean by "legacy wallets"?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Jon_Hodl 18 Oct
Old wallets that use addresses that begin with the number 1.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Satosora OP 18 Oct
Wallets that start with the number 1?
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bitcoiner1 18 Oct
An address is not the same as a wallet.
A wallet could have millions of address.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora OP 18 Oct
You are right, and address that starts with the number 1.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @OriginalSize 18 Oct
Not true. The 1 stands for #1 as in they're the best!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 18 Oct
Addressed that start with 1 aren’t insecure, but algorithms some paper wallets used at the time to create the key or password weren’t robust.
reply