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.

Recipient's public rejection of two red-team findings

jwweatherman_-2085427379116167369

https://x.com/jwweatherman_/status/2085427379116167369

Captured screenshot of the post by @jwweatherman_, posted 6 Aug 2026, 18:06 UTC
@jwweatherman_ posted captured full-size capture → original post →
Author
@jwweatherman_
Organisation
independent
Evidence role
social statement
Posted
Capture status
capture held

Replying to a request from Rob Hamilton to check direct messages, JW Weatherman says the two issues reported to him as critical now need to be addressed publicly and calls this not responsible disclosure. He then answers both: that his project does not verify signatures on Bitcoin Core, which he says is almost certainly untrue, is being checked, and would be like a missing second seatbelt given that downloads come from bitcoincore.org with implicit signatures and TLS; and that it downloads from GitHub, which he calls obviously not an issue. He writes as "we" for a project the post does not name. Held because it is a named recipient's first-hand account of being on the receiving end of the AI-assisted red-team sweep, and because it is one of the few captured disputes over the sweep's disclosure practice rather than its output. Both the findings and his rebuttal of them are the parties' own statements; neither is 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.