We’re building a wallet that will be easy to use for everyone. In our first post, we covered how we’re accomplishing this: we’re building a combination of hardware and a mobile application that will let you choose how you want to balance the convenience of using the app for transfers and the security of requiring the hardware for authorizing higher stakes money movement. This means that the hardware is only one part of the experience - in fact, only a small part. Customers will primarily manage their money by interacting with the mobile application we’re building, and will only need to interact with the hardware in combination with the mobile app to authorize larger, less frequent transactions above an amount of their choosing.

For transactions that require using the wallet hardware, we want our customers to be able to unlock their wallets securely, but with ease - an unlikely combination that historically has not existed in the market. We believe PINs, passwords, and seed phrases are confusing and often not secure given the workarounds normal people have to create given all the friction. This compounds when the need for those passwords are more rare.

Instead, to achieve seamless authentication in practice, we plan to incorporate a fingerprint sensor into the wallet hardware. Every authentication technology comes with tradeoffs. We’re excited about the security against theft or misuse that this will provide, the peace of mind that will come from not needing to remember yet another PIN, and the ease of placing a finger on the sensor rather than manipulating tiny, failure-prone buttons on a difficult-to-read screen. We're aware of limitations we'll need to design around - for example, some customers will want to share access to their money without relying only on their fingerprint. As we build the product, we'll evaluate additional access methods that customers could opt into. And of course, fingerprint sensor data will never leave the hardware device. But don’t take our word for it - listen to the independent community that will be able to inspect and verify our source code. Are there other limitations we should be designing around?

Additionally, as we’ve continued to design the hardware component of the wallet, we recently chose to use a rechargeable lithium polymer battery and USB-C port to power the device. We believe this is the best choice for this product, as it optimizes for the best customer experience and design. We shared our thinking and solicited feedback using a SPADE, a decision document format commonly used within Block. You can read more about our decision here.

Why use EMA, then?

Yet, I don't see why we would want to start referring to the EMA in these here parts when there are a lot of folks who refer to the regular MA to make various points.. and there seems to be a lot of analysis that largely account for the MA (and do not refer to the EMA)... .. and if you are throwing out other references such as the EMA, then maybe it just comes off as gobbledy-gook since many of us have not really looked into it or tried to figure out why we would want to use it.  If you insist on using the EMA rather than the MA, then maybe you should be pointing out why it is either something that we need to pay attention or that there is some meaning and value in using it, rather than merely seeming to contribute to chaos and confusion.. ...

200 of what?
I doubt that it is 200 weekly as that one has just gone over 20K recently.

I am sorry, but I have no clue what you are talking about, and I strongly suspect that you don't either.
Or, is it a 'talk' after a few drinks?

I obviously don't agree with what Putin is doing but I wouldn't underestimate any retaliation either.

i think/hope the main talking dude is wrong in his assessment of their capabilities.
probably just scaremongering, imho.

Today, Marty Bent released his 2 hour+ Tales from the Crypt podcast interview with Paul London, and London makes some good points regarding how both the motivations of Russia and the likely outcome of the USA's seeming heavy-handed-ness with financial sanctions may end up causing some acceleration of the dollar demise that comes faster than anticipated.  

London also describes that some of Russia's most recent missile technology developments that the USA denies , but ends up painting the USA in pretty handicapped position when it comes to playing any kind of nuclear card or any kind of direct-combat game with Russia.

Of course, since this is a Tales from the Crypt podcast there ends up being wee bit of a bitcoin angle to the discussion (at the end), even though London does not seems to be very bullish ab out bitcoin's role or likely fate.  London seems to have some beliefs that governments have an ability to regulate Bitcoin into oblivion, so maybe London's current errors in thinking causes him to be more of a pre-coiner rather than a no-coiner? perhaps?  perhaps?