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.

r/Bitcoin: call to flag the drainer's four consolidation addresses

reddit-flag-four-addresses

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1verf1p/flag_the_4_coldcard_addresses/

Latest reviewed change

source content difference between and

The Reddit thread gained new participant comments.

seen +16 -0 full history below 
 edited: false
 body:
 None of that is due to a bug in the bitcoin code.
+
+comment: p1qt1bk
+parent: t3_1verf1p
+author: RoyYourWorkingBoy
+created_utc: 1785883185

First lines only. The complete diff is in the timeline below.

Organisation
reddit
Evidence role
Community discussion
Published
not established
Source changes
4
Detected differences
4
Unreviewed
0
Copies held
5

Every check is recorded, including checks that found no text change. A detected edit is therefore bounded between two checks. The publisher's exact save time is not observable from this record. Last checked .

  1. source content difference between and Current source content +16 -0

    The Reddit thread gained new participant comments.

    seen · Captured here 4,087 chars
    What changed from the previous capture 16 lines 
     edited: false
 body:
 None of that is due to a bug in the bitcoin code.
+
+comment: p1qt1bk
+parent: t3_1verf1p
+author: RoyYourWorkingBoy
+created_utc: 1785883185
+edited: false
+body:
+They'll find a way to move the coins. But I think with enough money/interest the law will eventually find the hackers because of that spending. Blockchain surveillance is pretty incredible when they throw big resources into it.
+
+comment: p1qv32b
+parent: t1_p1qt1bk
+author: calos98x
+created_utc: 1785883807
+edited: false
+body:
+Same opinion
    Extracted text as captured 
    post: 1verf1p
author: calos98x
created_utc: 1785794458
title: Flag the 4 coldcard addresses
body:
Can't pools flag the 4 coldcard hack addresses down and rejected any outgoing transactions?

comment: p1jaaxw
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: boy_tue
created_utc: 1785794831
edited: false
body:
But why? Your keys your coins 馃槑.
They were legitimately moved with valid keys!

comment: p1jbcqj
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: opossum_cz
created_utc: 1785795133
edited: false
body:
Makes no sense. Who has the key controls the coins.

comment: p1jbn7w
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: coffeelover9457
created_utc: 1785795219
edited: false
body:
Yes. Now do you think mining pools should do that? At their discretion? Also, the game theory doesn't pan out. They could all agree in principle, but once a pool says f that I want that transaction fee and process a flagged transaction, it's all over.

comment: p1jdvyf
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: Alfador8
created_utc: 1785795882
edited: false
body:
No. Eventually someone will mine it. Also, if a pool starts censoring transactions hashers will be incentivized to point their hash to a different pool. It's not in the pools' interest.

    Excerpt only. The complete copy is held offline and backs quotations on this site. The original publication remains the canonical public source.

  2. source content difference between and source content +8 -0

    1 new Reddit comment was posted, by AltairSirioRigel, distinguishing the incident from a Bitcoin-code bug.

    seen · Captured here 3,641 chars
    What changed from the previous capture 8 lines 
     edited: false
 body:
 They work to sign transactions but I expect keys not to be weak, tho.
+
+comment: p1nov0t
+parent: t1_p1m5zo2
+author: AltairSirioRigel
+created_utc: 1785853956
+edited: false
+body:
+None of that is due to a bug in the bitcoin code.
    Extracted text as captured 
    post: 1verf1p
author: calos98x
created_utc: 1785794458
title: Flag the 4 coldcard addresses
body:
Can't pools flag the 4 coldcard hack addresses down and rejected any outgoing transactions?

comment: p1jaaxw
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: boy_tue
created_utc: 1785794831
edited: false
body:
But why? Your keys your coins 馃槑.
They were legitimately moved with valid keys!

comment: p1jbcqj
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: opossum_cz
created_utc: 1785795133
edited: false
body:
Makes no sense. Who has the key controls the coins.

comment: p1jbn7w
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: coffeelover9457
created_utc: 1785795219
edited: false
body:
Yes. Now do you think mining pools should do that? At their discretion? Also, the game theory doesn't pan out. They could all agree in principle, but once a pool says f that I want that transaction fee and process a flagged transaction, it's all over.

comment: p1jdvyf
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: Alfador8
created_utc: 1785795882
edited: false
body:
No. Eventually someone will mine it. Also, if a pool starts censoring transactions hashers will be incentivized to point their hash to a different pool. It's not in the pools' interest.

    Excerpt only. The complete copy is held offline and backs quotations on this site. The original publication remains the canonical public source.

  3. source content difference between and source content +8 -0

    One new comment was posted: Javanaut018 replying that the keys work to sign transactions but should not be weak.

    seen · Captured here 3,485 chars
    What changed from the previous capture 8 lines 
     edited: false
 body:
 So what? Still working as intended.
+
+comment: p1mzkgs
+parent: t1_p1mrnq4
+author: Javanaut018
+created_utc: 1785846687
+edited: false
+body:
+They work to sign transactions but I expect keys not to be weak, tho.
    Extracted text as captured 
    post: 1verf1p
author: calos98x
created_utc: 1785794458
title: Flag the 4 coldcard addresses
body:
Can't pools flag the 4 coldcard hack addresses down and rejected any outgoing transactions?

comment: p1jaaxw
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: boy_tue
created_utc: 1785794831
edited: false
body:
But why? Your keys your coins 馃槑.
They were legitimately moved with valid keys!

comment: p1jbcqj
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: opossum_cz
created_utc: 1785795133
edited: false
body:
Makes no sense. Who has the key controls the coins.

comment: p1jbn7w
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: coffeelover9457
created_utc: 1785795219
edited: false
body:
Yes. Now do you think mining pools should do that? At their discretion? Also, the game theory doesn't pan out. They could all agree in principle, but once a pool says f that I want that transaction fee and process a flagged transaction, it's all over.

comment: p1jdvyf
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: Alfador8
created_utc: 1785795882
edited: false
body:
No. Eventually someone will mine it. Also, if a pool starts censoring transactions hashers will be incentivized to point their hash to a different pool. It's not in the pools' interest.

    Excerpt only. The complete copy is held offline and backs quotations on this site. The original publication remains the canonical public source.

  4. source content difference between and source content +8 -0

    One new comment was posted: boy_tue ('So what? Still working as intended.').

    seen · Captured here 3,314 chars
    What changed from the previous capture 8 lines 
     edited: false
 body:
 weak valid keys ...
+
+comment: p1mrnq4
+parent: t1_p1m61l2
+author: boy_tue
+created_utc: 1785843993
+edited: false
+body:
+So what? Still working as intended.
    Extracted text as captured 
    post: 1verf1p
author: calos98x
created_utc: 1785794458
title: Flag the 4 coldcard addresses
body:
Can't pools flag the 4 coldcard hack addresses down and rejected any outgoing transactions?

comment: p1jaaxw
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: boy_tue
created_utc: 1785794831
edited: false
body:
But why? Your keys your coins 馃槑.
They were legitimately moved with valid keys!

comment: p1jbcqj
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: opossum_cz
created_utc: 1785795133
edited: false
body:
Makes no sense. Who has the key controls the coins.

comment: p1jbn7w
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: coffeelover9457
created_utc: 1785795219
edited: false
body:
Yes. Now do you think mining pools should do that? At their discretion? Also, the game theory doesn't pan out. They could all agree in principle, but once a pool says f that I want that transaction fee and process a flagged transaction, it's all over.

comment: p1jdvyf
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: Alfador8
created_utc: 1785795882
edited: false
body:
No. Eventually someone will mine it. Also, if a pool starts censoring transactions hashers will be incentivized to point their hash to a different pool. It's not in the pools' interest.

    Excerpt only. The complete copy is held offline and backs quotations on this site. The original publication remains the canonical public source.

  5. Earliest copy held
    seen · Captured here 3,181 chars
    Extracted text as captured 
    post: 1verf1p
author: calos98x
created_utc: 1785794458
title: Flag the 4 coldcard addresses
body:
Can't pools flag the 4 coldcard hack addresses down and rejected any outgoing transactions?

comment: p1jaaxw
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: boy_tue
created_utc: 1785794831
edited: false
body:
But why? Your keys your coins 馃槑.
They were legitimately moved with valid keys!

comment: p1jbcqj
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: opossum_cz
created_utc: 1785795133
edited: false
body:
Makes no sense. Who has the key controls the coins.

comment: p1jbn7w
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: coffeelover9457
created_utc: 1785795219
edited: false
body:
Yes. Now do you think mining pools should do that? At their discretion? Also, the game theory doesn't pan out. They could all agree in principle, but once a pool says f that I want that transaction fee and process a flagged transaction, it's all over.

comment: p1jdvyf
parent: t3_1verf1p
author: Alfador8
created_utc: 1785795882
edited: false
body:
No. Eventually someone will mine it. Also, if a pool starts censoring transactions hashers will be incentivized to point their hash to a different pool. It's not in the pools' interest.

    Excerpt only. The complete copy is held offline and backs quotations on this site. The original publication remains the canonical public source.

How to check this yourself

The excerpts and plain unified diffs above show the text this project held and how it changed. To verify a quotation, compare it against the page itself or against the Internet Archive's copies, which are independent of this project.

Complete captures are held offline rather than mirrored here, so this page shows diffs and excerpts. If a quotation is ever disputed, the full copy can be produced. Ask.