pull down to refresh
117 sats \ 7 replies \ @moneyball 20h \ parent \ on: Photon SDK for seedless bitcoin wallet designs bitcoin
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.
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.
reply
The comparison to Bank of America is also FUD. What is the Bank of America equivalent of using your own Electrum server and Emergency Exit Kit?
It may be the case surveying average bitcoiners would have them think this, which is why I like to call out the FUD so people aren't tricked.
reply
Also, if Bitkey makes design decisions that make it so other wallet software cannot recover their wallets, I think this is a trade off and should be discussed as such.
If you want to do advanced things, at least make it so you can restore the wallet in Core.
My earlier point about using a public electrum server and the Emergency Kit is that such a recovery flow is significantly more difficult than importing seeds. It's a trade off.
But Bitkey's language about this has not exactly been nuanced. "Seedless is safer" is a strong statement. They are free to market however they like, but my questions about vendor lock in are certainly not as strongly worded as their absolute claims to better safety.
If you wish to pursue clarity, I'm surprised you are willing to accept the "seedless is safer" claim at face value.
reply
I've commented about this at length on X and on stage at the Vegas conference.