What Initiative should take by the govt. and the hardware wallet providers?

[Crypto Library]

Sorry it is going to be another topic regarding the hardware wallet incidents, But I don't want to discuss here what initiatives we should take, which has already been discussed.

I want to discuss here that all these incidents, especially regarding hardware wallet tampering, the issue of tampering is not new, it has happened many times before.

I have seen many people suggesting to open the hardware wallet and check if it has been tampered. Can't the matter be made so that the hardware wallet companies use transparent bodies so that when the user checks himself, at least the warranty will not be lost?

And at the same time, what measures can the government take for this?

For example, will no one take responsibility for the users who lost their assets due to the firmware of hardware wallets? Can the regulator do anything here?

And if tampering is done by any official reseller, are the wallet providers completely exempt from liability? Then I think the government should cut off the reseller process or make the wallet providers take responsibility in case of any bad incident.

[Livingleged]

will no one take responsibility for the users who lost their assets due to the firmware of hardware wallets? Can the regulator do anything here?

I’m just think about insurance policy right now, if those companies involved has a insurance policy, then I guess users affect will worry less because the insurance should cover for the loses.

And if tampering is done by any official reseller, are the wallet providers completely exempt from liability? Then I think the government should cut off the reseller process or make the wallet providers take responsibility in case of any bad incident.

I didn’t know government had their own resellers, I only assume it’s individual sellers that link to the companies providing the wallets. I thought government dont even support self custody?

[Ambatman]

And you believe they are going to stop there? It would just introduce restrictions or centralisation.
Well they can be sued as every company
And if the evidence is against them they could face the law.

I’m just think about insurance policy right now, if those companies involved has a insurance policy, then I guess users affect will worry less because the insurance should cover for the loses.

It won't be able to cover all losses just some percentage if it even works
And they don't state it goes against their contract.

[Frankolala]

I think keystone hardware wallet is one step ahead of the rest hardware wallet because they have anti tampered device called self destructive mechanism. I read that if you implant a chip in it, it will automatically show you secured element error.

There's nothing the government can do in this case because no one has any concrete evidence that Mr X was the bad actor. This is one of the risk that comes with being your own bank. Ledger gave their buyers freedom to buy and return their hardware wallet after a complaint. They still foolishly keep the hardware wallet and sell it to another customer which is where the problem lies.

[MArsland]

I think keystone hardware wallet is one step ahead of the rest hardware wallet because they have anti tampered device called self destructive mechanism. I read that if you implant a chip in it, it will automatically show you secured element error.

There's nothing the government can do in this case because no one has any concrete evidence that Mr X was the bad actor. This is one of the risk that comes with being your own bank. Ledger gave their buyers freedom to buy and return their hardware wallet after a complaint. They still foolishly keep the hardware wallet and sell it to another customer which is where the problem lies.

I think other hardware wallets should implement a self-destruct system like the Keystone you mentioned. It may sound extreme but this is precisely where the point of a very effective option to prevent burglary.

Government involvement is usually much more complicated, given that their goal is to control while the existence of hardware wallets aims to provide freedom of ownership of assets for users. So it would be very risky and also contrary to involve the government in the process.

[ColdLava40]

I have seen many people suggesting to open the hardware wallet and check if it has been tampered. Can't the matter be made so that the hardware wallet companies use transparent bodies so that when the user checks himself, at least the warranty will not be lost?

How many people would even know what to check inside the wallet?

It only makes it more difficult for a common or a newbie investors to use because they have no idea about such technical. I myself will not even be able to tell if a hardware wallet had been compromised. It's not going to solve the issue.

And at the same time, what measures can the government take for this?

For example, will no one take responsibility for the users who lost their assets due to the firmware of hardware wallets? Can the regulator do anything here?

And if tampering is done by any official reseller, are the wallet providers completely exempt from liability? Then I think the government should cut off the reseller process or make the wallet providers take responsibility in case of any bad incident.

The government won't have much to say.

The hardware companies are supposed to be responsible for any future calamity that happens with their products.

What I think should happen would be to reduce the number of resellers they have around and have a way to confirm a product validity before it's sold to the public.

[BABY SHOES]

For example, will no one take responsibility for the users who lost their assets due to the firmware of hardware wallets? Can the regulator do anything here?

You mean arresting the founders of those hardware companies because they failed at firmware Over that flaw? Regulators are unlikely to do anything excessive, apart from that this is just pure negligence, not the intention to steal user funds...

And if tampering is done by any official reseller, are the wallet providers completely exempt from liability? Then I think the government should cut off the reseller process or make the wallet providers take responsibility in case of any bad incident.

Not entirely for the company... still they must be responsible, at least they only investigate where it is wrong, if there is fraud from the reseller, then the distributor is the one reported by the company.

The government will not interfere in this ha... because the company itself is wrong, or distribute its hardware without close supervision including other third parties.

[JeromeTash]

1. The manufacturing company should cut off resellers and completely discourage users from buying devices from resellers. Maybe introduce a security feature that can show that the device has been tampered with in case of any modifications.

2. The government does not give a damn. It will instead make people's lives harder. Isn't this similar to saying that the government should take care of your money? I think we all know what happens, right?

[X-ray]

Can't the matter be made so that the hardware wallet companies use transparent bodies so that when the user checks himself, at least the warranty will not be lost?

Interesting idea, I think some hardware wallets have released transparent edition, i don't know how much effective it is to prevent tampering though. One thing you need to remember, not everybody able to distinguish which device got tampered and which aren't.

And at the same time, what measures can the government take for this?

For example, will no one take responsibility for the users who lost their assets due to the firmware of hardware wallets? Can the regulator do anything here?

And if tampering is done by any official reseller, are the wallet providers completely exempt from liability? Then I think the government should cut off the reseller process or make the wallet providers take responsibility in case of any bad incident.

Historically, these kind of thing always ended up with civil lawsuit, I don't know what's going to happen to ledger, but this tampering honestly different than simple firmware exploit.

Maybe the listing of CryptoBilis as authorized reseller in Ledger's website can be a strong legal claim for a lawsuit.

[OcTradism]

I have seen many people suggesting to open the hardware wallet and check if it has been tampered. Can't the matter be made so that the hardware wallet companies use transparent bodies so that when the user checks himself, at least the warranty will not be lost?

And at the same time, what measures can the government take for this?

If you can prove your ownership of a wallet from which bitcoin was stolen by scammers, and if you can prove that scammers did criminal actions, you can sue them to government and the court. It looks easily in theory but practically any legal process will be complicated and take a lot of time.

Government and court don't protect scammers but if you are unable to collect and submit enough evidence, you can not win against scammers. Even if you win a lawsuit, I am not sure you will get 100% money back after all.