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: LLM tracing for coldcard attackers

reddit-llm-tracing-attackers

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1vi6ify/llm_tracing_for_coldcard_attackers/

Latest reviewed change

source content difference between and

The thread gained a reply distinguishing exploiting a vulnerability from researching one, arguing the evidence does not prove attacker identity.

seen +10 -0 full history below
 edited: false
 body:
 ?what
+
+comment: p2ot161
+parent: t3_1vi6ify
+author: area51user1
+created_utc: 1786299299

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

Organisation
reddit
Evidence role
Community discussion
Published
not established
Source changes
1
Detected differences
1
Unreviewed
0
Copies held
2

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 +10 -0

    The thread gained a reply distinguishing exploiting a vulnerability from researching one, arguing the evidence does not prove attacker identity.

    seen · Captured here 5,553 chars
    What changed from the previous capture 10 lines
     edited: false
     body:
     ?what
    +
    +comment: p2ot161
    +parent: t3_1vi6ify
    +author: area51user1
    +created_utc: 1786299299
    +edited: false
    +body:
    +This don't prove anything.
    +
    +Exploiting vulnerability != Researching vulnerability
    
    Extracted text as captured
    post: 1vi6ify
    author: Sensitive-Variety561
    created_utc: 1786122593
    title: LLM tracing for coldcard attackers
    body:
    I’m assuming this is not the case but I had this idea pop into my head and I don’t know what to believe anymore so I figured I’d share. 
    
    If any of these cold card hackers used LLMs and stupidly used an API key instead of a local / offline model to write the code to sweep the coldcard wallets, couldn’t the inference companies be subpoenaed to identify any users who prompted suspicious things around the time of this attack? 
    
    Most likely the code was written for a long time prior to the attack by the main attacker but any follow up attacker would’ve likely used LLMs. 
    
    comment: p2avf8i
    parent: t3_1vi6ify
    author: Inevitable-Waltz-889
    created_utc: 1786122772
    edited: false
    body:
    Are you advocating for this?
    
    comment: p2avgfp
    parent: t3_1vi6ify
    author: rudelysmugalligator
    created_utc: 1786122780
    edited: false
    body:
    most of these goons just use stolen api keys anyway so the paper trail leads to some random dude whose aws account got popped. the real pros aren't dumb enough to paste their malicious payload into chatgpt with billing info attached.
    
    comment: p2b69el
    parent: t3_1vi6ify
    author: LifterNineFour
    created_utc: 1786125536
    edited: false
    body:
    So what? Researching and using an LLM doesn’t prove you did anything. Besides, they shouldn’t be ordered to share any user data like that in the first place. 
    
    comment: p2b6z3r
    parent: t1_p2b69el
    author: Sensitive-Variety561
    created_utc: 1786125719
    edited: false

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

  2. Earliest copy held
    seen · Captured here 5,370 chars
    Extracted text as captured
    post: 1vi6ify
    author: Sensitive-Variety561
    created_utc: 1786122593
    title: LLM tracing for coldcard attackers
    body:
    I’m assuming this is not the case but I had this idea pop into my head and I don’t know what to believe anymore so I figured I’d share. 
    
    If any of these cold card hackers used LLMs and stupidly used an API key instead of a local / offline model to write the code to sweep the coldcard wallets, couldn’t the inference companies be subpoenaed to identify any users who prompted suspicious things around the time of this attack? 
    
    Most likely the code was written for a long time prior to the attack by the main attacker but any follow up attacker would’ve likely used LLMs. 
    
    comment: p2avf8i
    parent: t3_1vi6ify
    author: Inevitable-Waltz-889
    created_utc: 1786122772
    edited: false
    body:
    Are you advocating for this?
    
    comment: p2avgfp
    parent: t3_1vi6ify
    author: rudelysmugalligator
    created_utc: 1786122780
    edited: false
    body:
    most of these goons just use stolen api keys anyway so the paper trail leads to some random dude whose aws account got popped. the real pros aren't dumb enough to paste their malicious payload into chatgpt with billing info attached.
    
    comment: p2b69el
    parent: t3_1vi6ify
    author: LifterNineFour
    created_utc: 1786125536
    edited: false
    body:
    So what? Researching and using an LLM doesn’t prove you did anything. Besides, they shouldn’t be ordered to share any user data like that in the first place. 
    
    comment: p2b6z3r
    parent: t1_p2b69el
    author: Sensitive-Variety561
    created_utc: 1786125719
    edited: false

    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.