bitsko
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 730
- 1,532
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
There are some exciting things happening in the BSV wallet space, but also there is more opportunity given many of the wallet providers haven't managed to identify consumer needs they just think they have.
Electrum SV does not need to convince everyone it's doing the right thing, they just need to go out there and build a better wallet with better tech. If people like it and get value from it, it will grow, if not it won't.
Customer retention is much less expensive than customer acquisition, Blocking user feedback is not an effective way to learn more about customers you already have. Some wallet providers will learn the hard way.
Electrum SV does not need to convince everyone it's doing the right thing, they just need to go out there and build a better wallet with better tech. If people like it and get value from it, it will grow, if not it won't.
Customer retention is much less expensive than customer acquisition, Blocking user feedback is not an effective way to learn more about customers you already have. Some wallet providers will learn the hard way.
kyuupichan
Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 95
- 348
So apparently 5 hours blocks are the norm in BABland, where the DAA doth rule. It's almost as bad as the EDA now; it could soon be worse.
Of course, the chief exploiter is Jiang Zhuoer, the guy who cares so much about BCH he wanted everyone else to pay for Amaury's crap code that he profits handsomely from.
Of course, the chief exploiter is Jiang Zhuoer, the guy who cares so much about BCH he wanted everyone else to pay for Amaury's crap code that he profits handsomely from.
@kyuupichan Oh funny that. Turns out the 12.5% miner tax would be a practical solution to discourage miners from taking advantage of that. what a coincidence I wonder how ABC feels about it?
I suspect the tax saga has not played out yet given @Mengerian and @deadalnix the two obvious beneficiaries were happy to promote it.
Tom Harding has a twitter slide that suggested miners gaming the DAA have earned an additional 33% in BCH revenue. (a correlation if true is the halving would come 33% sooner than would otherwise be expected.)
So here is a thought. If the miners pay about 38% of that additional revenue they earn from gaming the DAA they could afford to pay ABC the 12.5% of the block reward tax voluntarily (let ABC disseminate the revenue as they see fit) while the miners still earn an extra 62% of that extra revenue,
win-win.
let's see if ABC see this as a problem or an opportunity to earn some money. They can use that extra revenue the miners earn as leverage to reduce miner income, by fixing it, forcing miners to in effect pay what would look like a bribe to leave it as is or suffer the loss in income if ABC chang it?
A drawback apart from all arguments made against the tax would be an accelerated halving. Halving before BTC is a security risk as switching to BTC gives up to 2016 blocks of more profitable rewards, given the difficulty adjustment time, and it will pay double until the halving which is not the same case with BSV as the DAA there will correct relatively quickly to accommodate the new hash. and BSV miners have already shown a commitment to secure the BSV chain at a relative loss.
Fun times, I wonder what's happening in the BCH echo chambers on slack - Oh I can guess, CSW bad and BSV's a scam, and XYZ is a BSV shill.
I suspect the tax saga has not played out yet given @Mengerian and @deadalnix the two obvious beneficiaries were happy to promote it.
Tom Harding has a twitter slide that suggested miners gaming the DAA have earned an additional 33% in BCH revenue. (a correlation if true is the halving would come 33% sooner than would otherwise be expected.)
So here is a thought. If the miners pay about 38% of that additional revenue they earn from gaming the DAA they could afford to pay ABC the 12.5% of the block reward tax voluntarily (let ABC disseminate the revenue as they see fit) while the miners still earn an extra 62% of that extra revenue,
win-win.let's see if ABC see this as a problem or an opportunity to earn some money. They can use that extra revenue the miners earn as leverage to reduce miner income, by fixing it, forcing miners to in effect pay what would look like a bribe to leave it as is or suffer the loss in income if ABC chang it?
A drawback apart from all arguments made against the tax would be an accelerated halving. Halving before BTC is a security risk as switching to BTC gives up to 2016 blocks of more profitable rewards, given the difficulty adjustment time, and it will pay double until the halving which is not the same case with BSV as the DAA there will correct relatively quickly to accommodate the new hash. and BSV miners have already shown a commitment to secure the BSV chain at a relative loss.
Fun times, I wonder what's happening in the BCH echo chambers on slack - Oh I can guess, CSW bad and BSV's a scam, and XYZ is a BSV shill.
Last edited:
you know how he constantly whines and bitches about getting questions from noobs. i hardly see him answer anybody. i think he's full of himself since ESV hasn't been around that long and all_he_did was fork Electrum yet acts like he's it's creator. and then all this blabbing about deprecating mnemonic seeds and criticizing hardware wallets as if it was some sort of bad idea. for his information, those have been godsends in terms of backups and usability. i remember the room being jammed in 2013 San Jose when pwuille gave his presentation on BIP32 and deterministic seeds which evolved to BIP39 & 44 which have made hardware wallets and backups very user friendly and were big steps forward for Bitcoin. yet he came so close to throwing it all away for how he thinks BSV will evolve. nvm all the hodlers that would've had to dig out their cold wallets to move coins and then have to be exposed forevermore to insecure online backups. i'll bet dollars to donuts the vast majority of ESV users are primary Trezor/Ledger users that only use ESV to monitor their balances or as a bridge to transact from time to time. he needs to watch himself.lol @cypherdoc ... ok... what did you say?
Last edited:
this is exactly why people prefer hardware wallets along with seed mnemonics. we need a stable electrum bridge to our seed based wallets. also, no one wants or can do regularly scheduled backups of keys online:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Electrum/comments/ewij87/cold_storage_compatibility_issues/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Electrum/comments/ewij87/cold_storage_compatibility_issues/
Last edited:
Seed based multisig is a really good solution for cold storage. Electrum (SV) pre-genesis implemented that really nicely. It did exactly what it's users wanted it to do.
Cold storage with multisig has nothing to do with using a hardware wallet. That is an independent issue. You can store the seed any way you like. Multisig buys you resiliency against loss or theft of any key slice.
In fact, I don't get why people buy a hardware wallet and put it into a safe. Just write down the seed. It seems that a piece of hardware is more likely to fail than a written down seed.
Cold storage with multisig has nothing to do with using a hardware wallet. That is an independent issue. You can store the seed any way you like. Multisig buys you resiliency against loss or theft of any key slice.
In fact, I don't get why people buy a hardware wallet and put it into a safe. Just write down the seed. It seems that a piece of hardware is more likely to fail than a written down seed.
I'll admit I'm quite happy with the current 'seed words' way of doing things. Equally I'm interested in some of his ideas of integrating more metadata int wallet software. At the moment any serious (tax noteworthy) movement I would just track separately.
blocking because of difference of opinion seems weak :/
it really was weak b/c i was much more civil in my (one) tweet to him compared to my above post about him treating noobs with respect. he can't take even the slightest challenge to his views. you can see his impatience/intolerance laced throughout his blog posts and tweets on this subject. and then all the blather about "pedocoins"
even tho one may label themselves a hodler or prefer cold storage, most still want quick access to their coins in an emergency if they want to sell a bit at $20K, as an example (happens fast you know
). or even if they want to generate an xpub for watching only. just storing a seed ignores all the research/time one may potentially need to choose/learn a wallet to mobilize the coins, which is not ideal if you're pressed for time. i'd even argue that multisig would make it even more imperative to have a HWW or offline Electrum ready to go in case your sig partners want/demand a quick sell. but yeah, seed storage only is possible for the truly diligent.but the real point here is hand written or stamped "seed" storage. very useful, unlike some are trying to say. the physicality addresses a whole different threat model. RT is not thinking security, just scalability.
Last edited:
Electrum supports watching wallets for multisig. Nothing would prevent you from placing the key shards in locations that you can access reasonably quickly (like within an hour).
It is very hard to make single-sig secure against theft and safe from loss. For the daily use wallet it's not an issue. For a hodler, I really would not advise single-sig.
Even a very simple multisig scheme is far safer than single-sig.
Writing down the seed means that there is no electronic device that can fail. Also, the seed does not need to move through a printer. Printers sometimes store data. Written text can have very good durability. It is cheap and safe.
Some people use metal devices. I can see the point in that.
It is very hard to make single-sig secure against theft and safe from loss. For the daily use wallet it's not an issue. For a hodler, I really would not advise single-sig.
Even a very simple multisig scheme is far safer than single-sig.
Writing down the seed means that there is no electronic device that can fail. Also, the seed does not need to move through a printer. Printers sometimes store data. Written text can have very good durability. It is cheap and safe.
Some people use metal devices. I can see the point in that.
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
Yes, I don't like hardware wallets too. Not as secure as a good paper wallet you put in a safe, and not as convenient as a simple software wallet (which is very very secure if you back it up with a paper wallet).
I even thought about if you could label the whole hardware wallet industry a scam. Remember: beside exchanges and ICO advisors, they are maybe the only profitable business in crypto.
They sell overpriced hardware based on misinformation about Security of wallets...
A bigger scam might be hardware nodes. They sell overpriced hardware based on misinformation about the power of nodes...
> hardware wallet industry a scam
I had the same thought... But there is one true benefit: When you are signing something these wallets show you on their display what you are signing (this is my understanding at least). So a virus cannot show you false information or use your keys outright.
> hardware nodes
I guess we all agree here that end-users do not need to run a full node. So that makes the product mostly useless.
I have listened to podcasts with Jameson Lopp from Casa. I very much like the way they make multisig usable and safe at the same time. Of course, this could be done with a light wallet as well. There is no need for the hardware side of their business.
SPV, as it is currently implemented, has privacy issues. Electrum sends the list of your addresses to Electrum servers. Let's hope that these servers don't log that data and send it to a chainanalysis company. I don't believe any of the built-in nodes would do that but we don't know for sure.
I had the same thought... But there is one true benefit: When you are signing something these wallets show you on their display what you are signing (this is my understanding at least). So a virus cannot show you false information or use your keys outright.
> hardware nodes
I guess we all agree here that end-users do not need to run a full node. So that makes the product mostly useless.
I have listened to podcasts with Jameson Lopp from Casa. I very much like the way they make multisig usable and safe at the same time. Of course, this could be done with a light wallet as well. There is no need for the hardware side of their business.
SPV, as it is currently implemented, has privacy issues. Electrum sends the list of your addresses to Electrum servers. Let's hope that these servers don't log that data and send it to a chainanalysis company. I don't believe any of the built-in nodes would do that but we don't know for sure.
shilch
Member
- Mar 28, 2019
- 54
- 216
Well, it's probably more secure than a simple software-based wallet. But there are more secure and convenient options: Multisig with yourself. You'ld need to sign on multiple devices before a transaction becomes valid. If one device becomes compromised, it still cannot do any harm.
cypherblock
Active Member
- Nov 18, 2015
- 163
- 182
Hardware wallets (the top ones) do pretty much exactly what they say they will do. So regardless of price that is not a scam. Profitable business does not make it a scam, lol.
>Not as secure as a good paper wallet you put in a safe,
Maybe, until you go to sign a transaction though. Then to do that securely you have to sign using an air gapped machine. It's just not something that most people have hanging around, and by the way if you do have one hanging around then it is pretty vulnerable to infiltration even if you are loading an OS like Qubes. Maybe if you put the air gapped machine in the safe as well you'd be ok. Hope your safe is large enough
cypherblock
Active Member
- Nov 18, 2015
- 163
- 182
