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.

Weak-entropy fallback called deliberate

jwweatherman_-2084921468337463615

https://x.com/JWWeatherman_/status/2084921468337463615

Captured screenshot of the post by @JWWeatherman_, posted 5 Aug 2026, 08:36 UTC
@JWWeatherman_ posted captured full-size capture → original post →
Author
@JWWeatherman_
Organisation
independent
Evidence role
social statement
Posted
Capture status
capture held

A standalone assertion, quoting and replying to nothing, that no competent designer would build a fallback to weak entropy, compared to an aircraft engine falling back to a nuclear bomb in the wing, and concluding that the arrangement was obviously malicious. It is an inference of intent against the vendor rather than a technical finding, and it is one of the plainest statements of the malice reading that circulated in the first week. The vendor's own contrary account is held at coldcardwallet-2085541034243600805, which argues there was no Coinkite fallback at all and that the software generator became reachable through a link-time error; Block's disclosure, held at block-disclosure, describes the behaviour as a fallback. The archive holds the reading and the vendor's rebuttal side by side. The imputation of intent is the poster's own and 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.