0

It doesn't have to be called "wallet.dat", right? That would be too obvious. Can you call it anything, with any extension?

Bitcoin-Qt is just not so trivial to me to use since the trivial way would be to have an option File -> Open wallet (at starting the program), then enter password if encrypted. TrueCrypt for example is trivial in this way, you select any volume, type in a password, mount, and dismount images.

I don't understand that either that you encrypt your wallet.dat file, close the client, open the client and it doesn't ask for your password?

  • You can do it with the -datadir option, but I can't think of a way to hide that you're using a wallet in a non-standard location. – Nick ODell May 28 '13 at 7:03
3

Bitcoin-qt only asks for your password when you do an operation that requires it, such as sending coins.

Currently, wallet.dat must be called that and reside in the Bitcoin data directory. It might be possible to use symlinks to work around that.

  • 2
    And the only way to reach the developers to ask for a feature-request is through IRC? – superuser Jan 13 '13 at 10:55
  • No, they are available via email, the forum, mailing lists, github (the official place for bug reports I think), IRC etc. But you're definitely not the first to ask for a feature to specify wallet location and filename. – Meni Rosenfeld Jan 13 '13 at 12:56
  • Do you mean this one is official? It does not state it clearly but if yes, good to know. – superuser Jan 13 '13 at 13:31
  • If I understand correctly, the bitcoin address(es) -hence, the balance- stored on the wallet are public data, anyone gets the wallet file can see it, only he can' spend the money without the password? So the easy solution is just to store your wallet.dat file in an encrypted file as it is not fully encrypted in itself - like your password manager's database. – superuser Jan 13 '13 at 14:24
  • Using a symlink would defeat the purpose of having a different name, as would having the alternate name stored in a config file with a known name. It might make sense only if you change it at compile time, but doing such a thing wouldn't boost your security by any significant amount. – o0'. Jan 13 '13 at 17:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.