Direct Integration with Bitcoin

The current plan is to expose the functionality using the virtual management canister; however, there is no firm decision on that. And yes, figuring out the most suitable candid interface is part of future engineering work.


I suggest that you ask this question in the Threshold ECDSA Signatures thread.
If there is a trace proving that multiple node providers colluded, their nodes could be removed (via NNS voting).


Good question! While there is a lot of interest in this integration, we’d love to hear more from the community what functionality they would use personally or build applications around.

Please feel free to drop ideas and wishes right here in the forum!


I’m most excited for an all-in-one crypto wallet that can hold BTC, ETH, other Ethereum tokens, ICP, and other IC tokens. This wallet will be integrated with Internet Identity, and will have advanced features like social recovery and other features that are impractical to do on decentralized blockchains currently because of their computational cost.

I probably won’t build this, but I hope someone else does.


NNS Motion Proposal for BTC Integration is live!:


I am getting worried about the security of canisters running on non-system subnets, that hold large amounts of monetary value.

I’m not sure enough security precautions have been taken to feel confident that canisters running alongside possibly malicious canisters will be safe.

I did not realize that each canister was running within the same process on each replica within a subnet, at least that seems to be the case.

Perhaps a prerequisite to this project moving forward is process sandboxing, so that even if malicious canisters break out of the Wasm environment, they’ll be stopped by the process boundary.

See here for more information: Enable Canisters to Hold ICP - #30 by lastmjs


Can you clarify what you mean by each canister running within the same process on each replica within a subnet? By definition, aren’t canisters running in different processes since they are running on different machines/replicas?



The security concerns you refer to are indeed something we are concerned about as well.
We have a feature on our roadmap that is concerned with protection against WASM jailbreaks. I.e., the execution of WASM code for a canister will be sandboxed in the future inside a separate OS process. This will, for example, be important to better protect high-value smart contract canisters.

But there’s more to the security in the domain of Bitcoin integration: Think of “Bitcoin blocks” that are specially crafted messages by an attacker and served to us from an attacker’s Bitcoin node we connect to and the attacker trying to mount an attack by exploiting a flaw in our Bitcoin block parsing code. This is something we are currently planning to protect against as well by sandboxing code that touches untrusted input, e.g., parsing of Bitcoin blocks, such that we mitigate much of the risk coming from untrusted content. Our networking architecture for the Bitcoin integration currently foresees that we sandbox the Bitcoin protocol logic including parsing code to mitigate the aforementioned risk.
Does that answer your question?



By definition, aren’t canisters running in different processes since they are running on different machines/replicas?

Indeed, each replica deterministically executes canister code as governed by Consensus and Message Routing. This ensures that on each machine we perform the same computations and go through the same state change in each round. This is the basic behaviour of the Internet Computer.

What @lastmjs means is that different canisters within a replica are executed by the same OS-level process of the replica, which is currently true. This would be something our canister sandboxing feature will change in the future to better isolate canisters from each other.


An acknowledgement that my thinking is generally correct is great!

My next question would be, how long will canister process sandboxing take, and what do you think about making that a pre-requisite to deploying the Bitcoin integration?

And the extra insight on the Bitcoin block processing sandbox is very interesting, thanks for that information.


Holy crap, I didn’t know that. That definitely sounds like a potential security risk. Where is this documented, if anywhere?

1 Like

I agree with @lastmjs that this (just the potential of a wasm jail-break)is a significant serious security issue for EXISTING dapps on IC.

For example :

The NFT Cronic Critters have an average value of about 10 icp for about 600 odd critters today based on sale listing after removing the ridiculously priced critters from the average calculation. There are roughly 5000 critters currently in existence. These are worth 5000x10 = 50,000 icp. At current approx $60/ICP , this is roughly $3M USD at risk in ONE nft type. Isolating canister executing in a sandbox would substantially reduce the risk; even if there are no known instances of WASM jail breaks.

It will only take one successful jail-break to completely erase trust from the community that we have tried, so assiduously, to cultivate. I would anticipate that TODAY we have close to $30 m in just NFT assets that are under risk. This estimate is based on the ROM of 10 different NFTs that are estimated to be on the IC today.

While arguments could be made to say that we have never seen an jail-break successfully occur in the wild, the amount of money is sufficiently large that it will attract hackers. I would think that securing canister execution should BE AT THE TOP of the priorities.


Thanks for the analysis! I guess one could rephrase your post as “there is a community driven bug hunting bounty program in place, with a bounty of ul to 30M$. As of today, the bounty was not claimed, which is a testament of how secure the IC is” :slight_smile:

(Oh, and BTW, your browser runs untrusted Wasm in process. If someone has a jailbreak for the Wasm sandbox, at least if it also works in browser, they can get much more there, I assume.)

1 Like

I feel like the honeypots created by canisters are much larger than you would find by breaking out of the Wasm sandbox in most web apps (the web app is just the frontend, not the actual server where a bank account is managed). And each application (tab) in the browser has a Wasm sandbox, and that sandbox is also sandboxed within its own process. We’re pointing out that the IC does not meet the standard of the browser. If all of your tabs and domains shared the same process, that would be more equivalent.

It’s also only been a few months since the value inside of canisters started accruing, so not much time to feel too comfortable.

I think it comes down to this: there is an obvious vulnerability with an obvious solution, and we should make implementing that solution a priority.


I’ve voted no on this proposal mostly to make a point about security. If there is an obvious vulnerability that could lead to catastrophe, and an obvious solution, I think the priority should be to patch that vulnerability.

I would like to see canister sandboxing per process before deploying these features.

The same sentiment is reflected in this proposal: Enable Canisters to Hold ICP - #75 by lastmjs


I think that is a very commendable and engaging way to show your classic well-earned reputation for clarity of thought


I am bitcoin hodler from 2013 and very early supporter of dfinity since 2018 i truly support them. My Vote is YES


:trumpet: :trumpet: Thanks for such ringing endorsement!

1 Like

It nearly did make it it’s post. (“An inadvertent community driven bug hunting bounty program for IC”). I will articulate why I did not make it it’s own post with all the rationale here (as opposed to a provocative new post).

At first, an free airdrop doesn’t really cost end users any real money. As the NFTs begin to percolate the eco-system, people begin to pay real currency for acquiring NFTs. For example, i got a free nft (starverse) for my participation on At the beginning, on the, the lowest price of one of those nfts was around 0.8 icp. Currently the lowest price is 1.89. Doubling of the price from nothing. This begins to cause a sense of entitlement (“it’s mine…I own it”) for the average end-user. Imagine if they log into the account one fine day and they don’t see that NFT. This causes anger, fury etc. They will begin to blame someone else (nobody buys the argument…“but it was beta”). They have lost something of value.

All participants do understand that crypto is inherently risky. But they also expect that reasonable protection be afforded to them on any platform. An ICAntagonist can make significant noise. i.e. " oh that dfinity foundation…200 cryptographers…and they FORGOT to put in basic sandboxing that WE have known for years…". Unfortunately logic (the fact that we have it in the roadmap) cross raw emotion and logic, in that case, has no chance. It can cause a catastrophic cascade with the right shills.

The reason that my articulation is here as opposed to top level is that most people will not bother to read a post 50 levels buried. But concerned discerning teams will… and hopefully take action as appropriate.


I think it is worrying to surface, but more so confirming, these things on a forum level completely in the open. It only takes one person to forward this in the wrong direction and then you have the avalanche started with antagonist shill to tackle in the future. Not to mention that you openly confirm where the security risks are, for someone with bad intentions will just go straight ahead to try to utilise. Some parts should not be surfaced/confirmed in this way I strongly believe.