COLDCARD RNG incident the public record, collected and explained
Informational only, and this site never asks for your seed words. details

Informational only. This is an open source collection of what others have published about the incident, together with an explanation of it. It is not financial, security or legal advice, and not a substitute for professional advice about your own situation. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or speaking for Coinkite. Material is attributed and quoted as published; where sources disagree their scenarios are kept separate with their assumptions rather than reconciled into one answer. Everything is meant to be checked against the linked evidence rather than taken on trust. Act on your own judgement about a particular situation. Editorial standards and corrections.

Do not disclose recovery material to a website, form, message or support account. This site never asks for it, and contributions containing recovery words or private keys are not accepted.

Shrinking anonymity set argument

coletu-2085521804337008997

https://x.com/ColeTU/status/2085521804337008997

Captured screenshot of the post by @ColeTU, posted 7 Aug 2026, 00:21 UTC
@ColeTU posted captured full-size capture → original post →
Author
@ColeTU
Organisation
independent
Evidence role
social statement
Posted
Capture status
capture held

Cole argues that the attack damages bitcoin privacy well beyond the people who lost money: anyone holding a compromised seed can see that wallet's entire transaction history and address set, including for owners who already moved their funds, so surveillance firms can cluster those addresses to single owners, and everyone else is left hiding in a smaller crowd. He puts it as hiding in a room of 1,000 people from which 800 suddenly leave. Held because it states the second-order privacy cost compactly and independently of rawavocado-privacy-impact, which the archive holds making a related argument four days earlier. The same account's on-chain probe is registered at coletu-2085065558333022663. The reasoning is the poster's; no captured source measures the clustering effect he describes, and it is not verified here.

This post is registered as evidence and has a locally held capture. The original remains the canonical publication.

How to check this yourself

Compare the screenshot or a quotation against the original while it is available.