My current suggestions would be either Passport or Coldcard.

So many people simping for centralized exchanges. On a bitcoin forum as well. Unbelievable.

Here's the real answer OP: Laziness and greed.

They are either too lazy to do any research before they start and find out that centralized exchanges are some of the most corrupt and most scammy organizations in existence and the most dangerous and risky place to leave their coins, or they are so lazy that they know all this but decide they can't be bothered to set up a wallet and write down 12 words, so will just risk all their coins instead.

Alternatively, greed. They are willing to risk their coins on these centralized exchanges which promise them interest, staking, or other rewards at obviously unsustainable levels, even though we have seen dozens of such platforms scam or go bankrupt and everyone who was using them lose everything.

The original btcrecover (https://github.com/gurnec/btcrecover) has long been abandoned. The fork he is linking to (https://github.com/3rdIteration/btcrecover) is indeed the most actively maintained and developed fork, and the same one which is linked to here: https://btcrecover.readthedocs.io/en/latest/. I don't think this user is the developer of the 3rdIteration fork.

Doesn't explain the pointless bumps, though.

Even better than that, why not hand over your dirty bitcoin to the government, and the government will hand you back the same value in squeaky clean CBDC! Perhaps Wasabi could implement this feature directly for any UTXO their blockchain analysis buddies tell them is "tainted".

Good job on reaching this realization - many people never get there. You have the nail on the head: What is the point of using a decentralized currency if you leave it entirely in the control of centralized third parties? Indeed, using bitcoin via centralized exchanges is not just as bad as using fiat, but in many ways it is actively worse. CEXs lock accounts for secret and arbitrary reasons for more often than fiat banks. With fiat banks, there is a legal process you can go through to have your account unlocked, whereas with CEXs you usually just lose everything. CEXs exit scam and disappear at an alarming rate. Most banks are insured, while most CEXs are not.

If I hold cash, then yeah, it it going to constantly devalue, but the cash will still be there tomorrow. If I hold bitcoin on a CEX, then who knows if I will still have access to it tomorrow, next week, next month?

Given their support for AOPP last year, embedding KYC requiring exchanges in to their software, and now funding mass surveillance and censorship, Trezor really have taken a major turn for the worse.

I like JoinMarket and use it a lot, but there is no denying that it is significantly harder for your average user to set up and use.

The same reason that Wasabi starting censoring transactions in the first place - they care more about making money than they do about morals or even bitcoin itself.

Such a tease!

Yeah, I get that. Also, having thought about it, I actually don't want to be installing software from a community fork on the same device as I use to store my bitcoin. I'd rather use two entirely separate devices for security reasons.

I figure by your post on the other thread you are now up to speed, but essentially Trezor have implemented Wasabi coinjoins, which directly fund blockchain analysis companies and enforce government blacklists.

Two interesting things I thought I would share.

Firstly: https://nitter.net/FOUNDATIONdvcs/status/1648688276654419969#m
Obviously targeted at the fact that Trezor now support censorship, but they then say they are building their own privacy tools and include the emoji symbol that is used on Twitter when talking about Whirlpool. I wonder what they are planning?

Secondly: https://github.com/mjg-foundation/passport2-monero#monero-firmware
The firmware engineer at Foundation has forked the open source codebase to his own personal GitHub and started some work on open source Monero firmware for Passport devices. Now the real questions is will I be able to dual boot.

Even with no transactions, miners would likely continue to mine for a number of reasons:

1 - They will want to unlock their previous block rewards, which are locked for 100 blocks.

2 - Miners and mining pools hold a significant amount of bitcoin. This is especially true of pools such as Binance pool. It is in their own interests to continue to secure the network so their own holdings don't lose value.

3 - We already have a number of protocols, merged mining, and other things of value which are based on bitcoin blocks being found. See for example the RSK OP_RETURN output in almost every block which is currently found. In the future there will likely be many more such projects, and so miners can gain value from elsewhere by mining bitcoin.

Since this post is currently being used on Twitter as some kind of "gotcha" moment, it's probably worth repeating that it is no such thing. All it shows is unmixed change being spent - the same change Whirpool deliberately segregates so as not to impact the privacy of its coinjoins. It does not show a Whirlpool coinjoin being deanonymized in any way.

The Wasabi shills repeating this example only show their own ignorance.

10 years seems very long. Which jurisdiction are you based in which requires this length of data retention?

I would suggest that having an up to date privacy policy is pretty important. I certainly wouldn't be happy to find my data had been shared with third parties I hadn't agreed to.

Yeah, as RickDeckard says, there is absolutely no requirement for Trezor to work with zkSNACKs at all. They could run their own coordinator, they could set up their own coinjoin process, they could partner with Samourai or JoinMarket, they could just not implement coinjoin at all. By specifically choosing to partner with Wasabi, they are directly choosing to support surveillance and censorship when alternatives exist.

Nitter also shows hidden replies by default, so you can see the dozens of tweets calling out Trezor for supporting censorship that they have hidden.

Absolutely. As I've said many times before, it's only a matter of time before every satoshi in active circulation can be linked to some malicious activity somewhere in its past. It is already a completely arbitrary decision on behalf of blockchain analysis firms as to how far back they choose to look, and therefore how likely Wasabi are to censor perfectly innocent users.

QFT.

I've explained here about some of the inherent problems with Wasabi coinjoins: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5419000.msg61220171#msg61220171

However, even if Wasabi coinjoins did not have these problems which the devs try to sweep under the rug, every time someone tries to coinjoin some of their coins, Wasabi pay a blockchain analysis company for information about those coins, and will then censor the coins in question if they don't like what they find. We don't know which blockchain analysis companies they use because they keep it secret, and we don't know what their criteria are for censoring users. Their terms of service also make it clear that they will not tell you why you are being censored. By doing this, Wasabi are surveilling all of their users and enforcing blacklists drawn up by governments and other unknown authorities and third parties regarding who is and is not allowed to coinjoin their coins.

I certainly don't want my wallet asking blockchain analysis companies to investigate my coins, and I certainly don't then want my wallet to then refuse to let me use my coins in the way I want based on secret criteria handed down from secret third parties. Not to mention that the fee you pay by using Wasabi's coinjoin is directly funding this blockchain analysis surveillance. By implementing Wasabi's coinjoin, Trezor are directly supporting all of this. All the UTXOs in your Trezor wallet that you try to coinjoin will be investigated by blockchain analysis, you will be censored if they don't like what they see, and you are paying a fee for this privilege of being spied on and censored.

I consider directly funding mass surveillance and enforcing government blacklists to be actively malicious behavior, and antithetical to the very concept of bitcoin. I will never suggest anyone ever buys another Trezor product again.

The person receiving the coins.

This is why I said above that after you have created the timelocked transaction, you should give a copy to your heir for safe keeping. This is so they can broadcast it after the timelock has expired. You can also keep a copy yourself, such as in a safe at home or a safe deposit box at a bank or somewhere else your heir will gain access to after you die.

If you are still alive, then before the timelock expires you move one of the inputs in the timelocked transaction to a new address, therefore rendering the timelocked transaction invalid and unable to be used. You then create a new timelocked transaction and give this to your heir. Rinse and repeat.

Maybe if it was made up of a few selected users rather than just anyone with "greater than x merit" which is easily abused, but then that raises the question "Why not just appoint said users as moderators"?

This would not be a good use of the trust system.

I guess the tone of the post didn't come across. I should have included a /sarcasm tag.

You've already picked up on my point here in your next post: Using numbers which are sufficiently high to make it resistant to abuse will also make it essentially useless.

I am also in general against any proposal which brings us closer to Reddit's "mob rule" upvote/downvote type system, where unpopular but factually accurate posts are often hidden from view.

Wasabi, and now Trezor, are actively supporting and in fact directly funding government sanctioned surveillance and censorship. This is about as antithetical to bitcoin as you can get.

It can be done with a Ledger device via Electrum, rather than via Ledger Live.

It's an off-by-one-error which is irrelevant to your use case here.

Because then they could clear out your accounts before you die, and you also have the added risk of them storing a copy of your seed phrase and it being vulnerable to theft. Timelocked transactions avoid all of that.

Yes. You simply spend any one of the inputs before the timelock expires and the timelocked transaction become invalid and therefore useless.