With things like Multi-sig popping up everywhere, do you think this negates some of the pressing need for Hardware wallets?
It's still interesting security wise to make one part of the signature harder to steal, if the wallet is cheap enough - this is actually a good use case for our upcoming smartcard based wallet which will be demonstrated at launch with a multisig wallet partner. |
|
|
|
Pour les courageux qui ont mis à jour, vous avez un Electrum à tester içi : https://github.com/btchip/electrum(cot request faite chez Electrum officiel) Au passage j'ai suivi le meme path BIP 44 que Trezor - donc le portefeuille n'est pas compatible avec KryptoKit - par contre, il est compatible avec Trezor, pour ceux qui ont les deux et qui veulent tester l'interop. au passage, comment faire pour tester ? ben c'est simple, vous vous munissez de votre plus beau serpent et de https://github.com/trezor/python-mnemonicpuis from mnemonic import Mnemonic
Mnemonic.to_seed(la_seed, la_passphrase).encode('hex')
c'est la seed hexa que vous devez refiler à BTChip |
|
|
|
- niveau de français approximatif / google translate.
on trouve des chose parfois.
il peux aussi y avoir des abus.
 |
|
|
|
|
it's still a necessary evil and not an issue for me when done properly (off topic though)
my point was that you shouldn't blindly trust what's displayed on a secure screen because it comes secured by the payment protocol - confirming the address over a second unrelated channel still seems to be a good security practice
|
|
|
|
This is a bit clumsy, because you have to check those addresses on the display, BUT this will go away when payment protocol BIP is accepted and implemented in Trezor.
from what I understood, the payment protocol doesn't solve two major problems associated with PKIs : that people are not reading who issued the certificate, and that """certification authorities""" fail to perform due diligence before issuing certificates. |
|
|
|
That's ridiculous. I have helped enough already, if you can't see the risks, I don't care any more.
I'm not the one that needs being convinced. You have bitcoins, I don't; so bitcoin theft is your problem, not mine.  oh ok so you're only trolling here, not trying to improve things. duly noted. |
|
|
|
(Sorry for being cynical. Maybe I need to take a long break from this forum.)
I'd vote for either that or back up your security questions with code, exploits, real life scenarios, anything. It's all fun to come up with theories when ( almost) all code is here for everyone to see, but doesn't really serve any purpose in my opinion. But I am not taking legal action,
I haven't seen anyone else mentioning his lawyer in this thread. Or perhaps he's working for free and like answering your questions, then it could be nice to share his contact, as I always wanted to meet that kind of lawyer  But I doubt I will get it, and I will just hold on to the device and sell in 5 yrs for a profit since it is a collectors item now.
so, problem solved, and people already gave you multiple options to recover your funds, either with or without Trezor (and yeah, the double spend is not an issue - given the time you had to push it yourself) |
|
|
|
Yup, clearly, a connected device will never reach paper wallet security
until you want to spend it (that should be a new meme ...) |
|
|
|
|
J'avoue pas avoir testé avec du multisig mais bon je ne vois pas trop pourquoi ça planterait, je ne pense pas que Blockchain utilise ça - c'est utilisé par tous les wallets Android en gros.
|
|
|
|
BitcoinJ qui permet d'avoir une abstraction sympa sur la blockchain coté mobile ou serveur pour pas cher en ressources par rapport au reste (c'est mon backend pour la boutique BTChip avec un peu de scotch à droite à gauche)
|
|
|
|
Please don't shill for them about an unstable merger. I have just redownloaded electrum and it DOES NOT COMMUNICATE WITH THE TREZOR.
Did you install python-trezor from https://github.com/trezor/python-trezor before running electrum ? (with python setup.py install) Then you need to enable the plugin in plugins configuration. |
|
|
|
*edit* no now i think im wrong. The root is protected by the mnemonic + the user pass. According to the video i linked. And it looks like it is simply concatenated so i think you should be able to just concatenate the user secret onto the end of the mnemonic on wallet32 and that should work.
check out storage_getRootNode @ https://github.com/trezor/trezor-mcu/blob/master/firmware/storage.c that should answer your question |
|
|
|
mais oui c'est super facile  |
|
|
|
cool, tu vas avoir un PM  |
|
|
|
Je cherche des courageux pour tester une màj firmware  |
|
|
|
looking nice I'll try to have a real look on the APDU specification this time |
|
|
|
That Coin Card is supposed to be out this Summer that you can load all of your credit and debit cards onto one card. I pre-ordered one of those. I am anxious to see how it works also. Can't decide which one I am more anxious for...the Trezor, or the Coin card...
Coin is a great example of an idea making problems worse than they originally were Card payments are a complete mess today because high security systems (requiring a dynamic card authorization for each transaction) are coexisting with systems using static security (yay USA), so backends have to support all scenarios which leads to epic failure - such as card data read from a distance on a secure NFC card in country A, with great security and cloned on a magstripe card used in country B, with not so great security. Coin enables that scenario for all cards. Bitcoin is built from the ground up with uncompromised security and Trezor is already out so ... stop being anxious |
|
|
|
voilà, non bon après je pourrais m'y pencher un coup, déjà j'ai vérifié que ça marche y a quelques temps, et puis Trezor fait aussi des choses, au final nos APIs de comm sont pas super différentes ... vais déjà essayer de finir ma boutique celà dit |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
