pull down to refresh
related posts
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ElectronicsQuestions 27 Apr 2023
I don't know exactly how they work, but I would assume that, unlike what it says in the article, you shouldn't send BTC to the original address - or, rather, you shouldn't accept a satscard where that is the case, as the private key has been exposed. Unless the actual signing is done on the card, like a tapsigner. But if that's the case, why are they two different products? I don't know, I'm just "thinking aloud".
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @SwearyDoctor 27 Apr 2023
I'm confused, I think.
It tells you in the article that the receiver has to "verify the funds are available", thus needs access to the internet, no? It's a wallet, how would I know what it holds without access to the updated blockchain?
It says I need the CVC printed on it to move it, but the holder had access to that before handing over the card and could have loaded it, and then moved the funds.
Or is it only that the spender doesn't have to have internet access, but the receiver needs it? Am I missing something?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @AR0w OP 27 Apr 2023
Yes you are right ,its just a cold wallet that but its like a card so you can spend directly like visa cards
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SwearyDoctor 27 Apr 2023
as in, my card does not need the connection, but the store needs a reader connected to the blockchain? So it's an option in an environment where the customer has no phone, but internet service does exist. Which makes the meme the article has in it a bit misleading, because it is true that if the internet falls/gets cut/whatever, our sats are stranded on a blockchain which still produces blocks on the other side of the world, but we can't interact with it....
reply