you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2026
10 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
2633 readers
135 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
There was a cryptocurrency wallet hack the other day which has so far gone unremarked here because the popcorn is stale and we all pivoted to AI. And yet there are dozens of voices of bagholders crying out in pain wanting to be heard. This is their story.
For some reason the best explanation comes from a boring company that makes point of sale credit card readers https://engineering.block.xyz/blog/predictable-rng-fallback-and-32-bit-reseed-in-coldcard-firmware
Oh hey they got the most important thing not to get wrong wrong in the regulation free ~~money~~ settlement layer of the future.
The bug? Well in one file they wrote
#define MICROPY_HW_ENABLE_RNG 0, and a library they depended on had this code:This should have caused a build failure, but since MICROPY_HW_ENABLE_RNG was defined, to zero, it did not and instead continued down an insecure codepath.
As a C++ programmer this isn't an unheard of sort of mistake to make in the moment. Many libraries use undefined for preprocessor variables, but there are some people who also use zero.
But it's less excusable to not catch it when this is literally the most important thing to get right in a bitcoin wallet. Did they not trace the code path when writing the code? Did they have no integration tests or unit tests for RNG seed quality? Poor RNG seeding has come up a ton in literature, so is the sort of thing people writing cryptographic code should check for...
We'll have to addend that old saying: "don't roll your own crypto unless the other person's crypto is from a blockchain developer in which case you're probably better off rolling your own after all."
I personally don't want to sneer at the bagholders too much here. It's 2026 and at this point it just feels kinda sad. But I'll end this comment with this glowing review:
"It's open source, so anyone can verify" -- unfortunately for them the verifier was also a hacker.
Also, most of the would-be verifiers are frying their brains with AI
I was gonna link someone else’s observations on it, but got sidetracked by a shiny object or something.
https://mastodon.catgirl.cloud/@49016/117021988214007605
They didn’t link the sources, but apparently the all-my-apes-gone twitter crowd are still breathtakingly ignorant of technology and statistics, despite how many years of bitcoin catastrophes have passed.
Posted entirely unironically, apparently. Hard to say, but Poe’s law has yet t be repealed.
All the dice discourse in particular has made this a fun throwback to the days of crypto bros earnestly arguing about which wall in your house you should hide your hand-stamped seed phrase record inside and whether you could trust a published book of truly random numbers over a series of 256 coin flips. Ironically I can only assume that by the time any of the concerns about entropy sources were validated most of them lost their crypto to some combination of get-richer-quicker ponzi schemes and twitter DMs claiming to definitely be FTX tech support.
I've been following it a bit, there's a lot less comedy gold to mine nowadays
here are some links from another forum
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2026/07/31/major-bitcoin-wallet-flaw-drains-594-btc-in-25-minute-sweep (crypto shill outfit link)
https://bitcoinenthusiast.org/uploads/31820a53956b53c5/image.png
https://bitcoinenthusiast.org/uploads/c0804335a52922e4/image.png - this last is attributing to malice what's clearly stupidity