pull down to refresh
at what point would we be liable for signing transactions that are verboten?
The moment an Iranian in the US or Russian in the EU gets picked up and they have a bookmark to a wallet that leads to you, especially if you have touched half a hockeystick at that point. Then you're instantly everyone's new fav batty boi and your lawyers are going to laugh all their way to the bank, back to you, and all the way to the bank again, while your desperate attempts to comply will completely destroy your reputation and make affected people really, really angry. I've seen that happen twice as an insider now, once on each side of the Atlantic. Same outcome too; it's funny how playbooks that work tend to be passed around.
This is why the state of things is so bad.
I think that solutions can be found in the optional/bootstrap service, like you have for shockwallet. You can walk. This worked for wasabi too, though less optimal because from what birdies told me at the time, snacks wasn't prepared.
It can defo be done. I'd work on a protocol. Not on the service implementation. That makes it a hobby thing tho.
Yea hopefully ShockWallet isn't as moronic in hindsight as Snacks/Scamourai turned out to be... one thing I made sure it never does is create chain transactions... can't pay OFAC blacklisted addresses if you don't create chain transactions. Zeus and Boltz can have the swap business. Even if we had to walk from the Bootstrap service literally any other Pub could provide that.
I'd work on a protocol.
Maybe I'll throw a draft in a repo at some point, if there's enough brainpower interested in solving this implementations may just pull themselves together from the nudge.
Even the password itself is a workaround to the fact holding keys is not realistic for most users, a seed phrase isn't materially any different than a post-it note on your monitor.
That's always the gorilla in the room for sure, it'd actually be relatively easy for me to do a GreenAddress with Sanctum + ShockWallet directly... but then at what point would we be liable for signing transactions that are verboten?
One argument is that's not control, might be something to glean from the terms highly resourced companies like Unchained and others have... but even then it ultimately doesn't matter what any one entities interpretation of the law is. Law is made up, arbitrarily in large part, as we go.
That introduces the complexity of it needing to be protocolized and distributed. Pub at least puts us in a good position because we're already getting servers distributed, Pub's can make anyone a highly online co-signatory and descriptor backup... but that adds a ton of surface to secure... which ties into your latter point.
This is why the state of things is so bad. Lucid people are incentivized to do nothing.