BTC
$66,347
▼ 2.62%
ETH
$2,033
▼ 4.97%
SOL
$78.19
▼ 5.03%
XRP
$1.30
▼ 3.51%
BNB
$581.15
▼ 4.84%
ADA
$0.240
▼ 4.50%
DOGE
$0.090
▼ 2.61%
⬡ Communities
🌐
All
Feed
General
General
210K
Bitcoin
Bitcoin
128K
Ethereum
Ethereum
94K
Dogecoin
Dogecoin
71K
Solana
Solana
67K
XRP
XRP
52K
BNB
BNB
45K
Cardano
Cardano
38K
USDC
USDC
0K
Aptos
Aptos
0K
Fetch.ai / ASI Alliance
Fetch.ai / ASI Alliance
0K
Avalanche
Avalanche
0K
Bitcoin Cash
Bitcoin Cash
0K
Cosmos
Cosmos
0K
Ethereum Classic
Ethereum Classic
0K
Filecoin
Filecoin
0K
Chainlink
Chainlink
0K
Immutable
Immutable
0K
Internet Computer
Internet Computer
0K
Litecoin
Litecoin
0K
NEAR Protocol
NEAR Protocol
0K
Polkadot
Polkadot
0K
Polygon
Polygon
0K
Stellar
Stellar
0K
Tether
Tether
0K
Toncoin
Toncoin
0K
TRON
TRON
0K
Uniswap
Uniswap
0K
← Back

The Coldcard incident

The Coldcard incident got me thinking about something people rarely discuss when talking about Bitcoin security: hardware wallets are not automatically “safe” just because they are hardware. The recent incident is a good reminder that firmware, transaction signing, supply chain security and user behaviour all matter. How much attention do you actually pay to those layers?

Upvote 5 Replies 1 replies
Replies 1
SA
@SatoshiSoul Aug 19, 2026

I’ve always thought the biggest weakness is the gap between what the device protects and what the user assumes it protects. A hardware wallet can isolate keys, but it can’t stop someone from approving the wrong transaction or ignoring a suspicious signing request.

Upvote 0