pull down to refresh
203 sats \ 10 replies \ @Scoresby OP 20h \ parent \ on: Photon SDK for seedless bitcoin wallet designs bitcoin
There is still a fundamental difference between key material that can be imported into multiple different wallets and the design that is move to a new wallet by sending your coins (signing a transaction).
If I am in a country that gets sanctioned by the US and I use a Bitkey, I will likely no longer be able to connect to any Bitkey server. Okay, this is fine if I can turn on the app and get to the point where I can select a different electrum server.
However, if there is any point during the process of creating, signing and broadcasting a transaction that requires something from a Bitkey server, then I have to rely on the emergency recovery kit.
Seeds, though they carry other risks, do have a great advantage on this. I can stop using whatever wallet won't work for me and import the seeds into a different wallet pretty easily. This seems valuable to me. I wish the Bitkey design made it easier to export my keys if I really wanted to.
If you use your own Electrum server and sign with your mobile app and Bitkey device why do you need Bitkey's server?
And again, in the scenario where the US sanctions a country, the emergency exit kit exists.
You said vendor lock-in. Please support such a claim.
reply
I'm thinking of the scenario where I'm just a normal Bitkey user. I don't know much about public electrum servers. But I happen to be in a country the US suddenly picks a fight with.
If I haven't preplanned for this scenario, will I be able to still sign a transaction?
In the case of seeds words, I don't have to worry. Lots of wallet software supports the standard.
Bitkey's solution is not so much like a standard. It is unique to Bitkey and telling users that there's no vendor lock in because they can send their coins to a new wallet is very tenuously true.
In general, users have understood bitcoin wallet lock in to mean you can only restore the wallet with that specific vendor's software. This is true for Bitkey.
Spend your coins to a new address is a new definition of not being locked in.
reply
If a user is at high risk of US sanctions, then maybe Bitkey isn't the right product for them. But again, even if such a user buys Bitkey, they are not screwed if sanctions come, because they have the emergency exit kit.
There are MANY users in the world who are ill-prepared to handle private key material directly, so seedless designs are a better solution for them. Bitcoiners should rejoice that we have more options on the market.
And again, please stop with the FUD / outright lie of vendor lock-in. I still haven't seen you provide an example.
reply
Do you agree that "send to a new address" is a new definition of not being locked in?
Is it true that I can only restore my Bitkey wallet in another instance of Bitkey app?
Those are my examples.
There are MANY users in the world who are ill-prepared to handle private key material directly
Sure, but why not make it just a little easier to export my keys? It doesn't have to be super easy, but what is the risk of allowing users (with some very large scary warning) export their keys, or even seed words that make it easy to import to another wallet?
reply
I've never seen a definition of vendor lock-in that speaks to whether "sending a bitcoin payment" is lock-in.
Vendor lock-in typically means a high barrier to exit from a vendor. In the common case with Bitkey, it is not a high barrier - you literally just make a normal payment. In an extreme case where you become economically sanctioned at the government forcibly requires Bitkey to stop serving you, then the costs rise as you need to either use your own Electrum server or the emergency exit kit, but you still can escape. Matt Odell already tested this out and reported that it wasn't too hard to do.
As for restoring a wallet under normal operation, yes you must use the Bitkey app and server, as no one else supports all of the innovation the Bitkey team has done with recovery. Perhaps some day a standard protocol will emerge for all of these sophisticated recovery mechanisms and multiple vendors support it. But even with the current situation of only one vendor supporting these recovery mechanisms, it is not true the customer is locked in to the product. If they no longer want to or can use the product, they can switch to another product, albeit with inferior recovery mechanisms.
reply
Fair enough. I suspect if we surveyed average bitcoiners, they would have a sense that the Bitkey model is like Bank of America saying, "look, just wire your funds to Chase. You aren't locked in."
I like the idea of my wallet software being easily replaceable. If I have to sign a transaction to do that, I am to some extent reliant on the software to allow it to happen.
To me, this doesn't feel like what most other wallets support (much easier restore to a different software provider). I don't believe Bitkey can claim equality with this property in other wallets. It's a trade off, sure. I get more reliable backup for foot gun situations, but I lose easy wallet recoverability with different vendors.
I'm fine with you calling it FUD. It's on me to make my case. But it's not a lie.