Then people using bitcoin will simply switch to Linux, or have a separate Linux partition just for bitcoin.
If you use Linux only with software from signed repositories, it is virtually impossible to catch a virus.
If you use Linux only with software from signed repositories, it is virtually impossible to catch a virus.
You are thinking of the traditional garage made or botnet data thief virus that gets instantly detected and patched. You might want to brush up on the reality of actual state-level cybercrime or cyberwarfare.
I explained myself more fully in the other thread.
http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=111.msg39486#msg39486
Stuxnet is a weaponized virus. Its a scary example of what can be achieved against a countries infrastructure.
Luckily bitcoin is not a country
Luckily bitcoin is not a country
Fascinating. And a fine example of what I was talking about in the other thread. Thank you for your research. That is exactly the kind of attack I am speaking of. A well funded well organized intelligence community backed scorched earth attack on the bitcoins themselves. They'd only have to do it once and it would permanently wound the very notion of cryptocurrency despite the reality of any subsequent situation in much the same way as Chernobyl slaughtered nuclear power despite it over all being infinitely better for humanity than burning fossil fuels for power.
We have to do it right, and we have to do it right the first time or it will be the last time.
I actually think what Innomen is saying makes a lot of sense. Switching to Linux will not be possible for people who can barely operate Windows. It is not us, the technical people that need to worry about this, but since we try to convince more and more people to start using Bitcoin (for example I got a few of my friends into using Bitcoin, but most of them have no idea how it all works and I doubt they encrypt their wallet with TrueCrypt after every transaction and copy it to five different places), they will be the ones affected by the viruses. Once virus' authors realize there is money in it, they will save no effort to get to one's wallet.
Another VERY important aspect of this is that people need to be aware of the fact that after they copy their wallet into a safe place they should start using a new one. Why? Because most people make backup copies after a new transaction (I personally do that after a big transaction). Now, if an attacker or a virus manages to transfer coins from your account - your backup copy is useless. It's actually better if the virus corrupts your wallet instead of using it (if you have a backup). And, since the wallet is not encrypted, I suppose this is not impossible? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Another VERY important aspect of this is that people need to be aware of the fact that after they copy their wallet into a safe place they should start using a new one. Why? Because most people make backup copies after a new transaction (I personally do that after a big transaction). Now, if an attacker or a virus manages to transfer coins from your account - your backup copy is useless. It's actually better if the virus corrupts your wallet instead of using it (if you have a backup). And, since the wallet is not encrypted, I suppose this is not impossible? Please correct me if I am wrong.
This. (And thank you.)
agree, winning the hearts of populace should be high on the list of priorities for bitcoin proponents when planning the roadmap.
Exactly, and to do that all reasonable concerns must be addressed and the demands/realities of non technical end-users must be considered reasonable, especially at this stage.