pull down to refresh
I would still be personally worried about bias from dice (but I may be biased hahaha).
To avoid that, I would not buy used dice or someone else's dice. There are people who put it into ovens to cheat on Dungeons and Dragons (https://www.reddit.com/r/statistics/comments/3246r7/where_to_buy_loaded_dice_for_teaching/).
I would still be paranoid about dice so I would buy those advertised for casinos. And even then I would still be worried so I would use the idea of Ava Chow I saw on Nitter to use the von Neumann skew-correction algorithm or a variant. And I would do my own research about the different algorithms used, although the one you shared seems perfectly fine.
Everything written above could be overthinking. Also factually people who used dice with the coldcard were safe. So factually those who used dices were proven right to do so. However I would still keep diluting risk by using multisig because this is where I feel confident and have put thought and effort into.
At the end of the day, the diversity of ideas to secure bitcoins is interesting to see and I learned something new from the way Bitkey does it. Although I didn't like the aggressive marketing they did and I would not use it myself. For those who prefer dice, I think they should go for it.
Everything requires a leap of faith. Maybe the next time I board an airplane the pilot will be suicidal and won't make it into the destination.
I think he is overthinking.
You make a good point. People who thought about self-custody were not surprised about a single point of failure failing. People who used multi-vendor multisig were pleasantly surprised and reassured they were right.
My multisig was a mix of hot wallet (Nunchuk), ledger, jade and other keys on Liana (unfortunately just a few wallets are miniscript compatible).
I think people at Casa are probably those who are pleasantly surprised. Expecting single points of failure failing, not multisig. Jameson Lopp talked about multi-vendor multisig way before Coldcard failed, this is how I got the idea.
One of the first example of big failure I have learned in computer science was a rocket which exploded because of a type issue (I think integer and float). Also the patriot missile, which blew up an American boat in the 90s if my memory is correct, is taught in textbooks.
There is herd mentality on Twitter, and people overreact.
Most of the software we often use still works. In my case Bitcoin core, mempool, Phoenix, etc. no issues.
I lean into a joke which didn't end well.
Also people are angry and want a scapegoat. Combine the two you get this.
I was happy at first when I saw the coldcard bug because I wouldn't hear about nvk in the near future. But now when I see the scale of the disaster I would not like to be in his shoes, psychologically it must be tough.
Hahaha.
I was thinking about what I read from pro-BIP110 people and what I hear in some Bitcoin podcasts.
LLM models can do an amazing job to replace engineers and teachers, and there are issues for sure in academic circles. But to prove someone learned and can apply theoretical knowledge (e.g.: for cryptography) in critical applications, I trust and discriminate based on credentials from universities.
I have chosen Core Lightning over LND for the same reason hahaha.
This is why I struggled when I looked for a wallet to generate entropy at the time when I started saving in Bitcoin.
In the past I used to move my mouse to generate entropy with the Gnu implementation of PGP. To me anything which uses natural phenomena is good enough. At the time when I did my research I quite liked how Cloudflare uses lava lamps to generate entropy (see https://blog.cloudflare.com/lavarand-in-production-the-nitty-gritty-technical-details/). But we can't have the same for hardware wallets.
So since I didn't know at the time (and still don't know enough about Number theory to trust myself), to me the most important source of trust is credentials. We can at who has a PhD to make good judgement. At the time when I did my research there were public figures like Adam back, Charles Guillemet, and a Swiss individual who made a wallet which recruited good people but I don't remember the name. So at the time the choice was either Blockstream Jade or Ledger if we wanted to use specific hardware. Blockstream did the entropy mistake around 2015 I think but I would still trust them just based on the credentials by assuming they learned from their mistakes.
As a public figure I saw recently Tadge Dryja, who recommended to just use a computer with Linux. In my multisig I had a hot wallet generated with Android, it is the same, based on Linux. So just using a computer is good enough, although if we learn from Luke Dash Jr's mistake, we should save it offline in the long run.
In retrospect I am very happy not to have fallen for peer pressure and did not use Coldcards on mainnet (I ended up just using it on testnet). NVK's criticism related to raspberry pi boards was extremely disrespectful for others. Someone who spends time criticizing others in general is someone who lacks self-confidence. And NVK didn't publish his credentials or works in cryptography, so I assume he has none. I may have generated seeds from a "shitcoin inside" wallet, and from someone who accepted money from Epstein but I slept well this weekend.
So in short, my responsibility is shifted to social trust based on educational background and what big companies use (servers with Linux). What I learned from this is the same than during the corona virus period, don't fall for peer pressure and what people recommend, only use what seems to make sense.
Think of the Contributors section as an exhaustive list made automatically by GitHub, not those behind the repo. Example: once I did one minor commit for work, did not do anything else, never really took a look at the entire repo and yet was added.
Same for Ledger, I saw someone blaming them but they are not paid to review the code of Coinkite, probably they looked for a vulnerability on the hardware only.
I was a fan of their sat card too!
Taking about the Block clock, actually yesterday I discovered the forked version was being sold on the website of one of the seed signer store:
https://btc-hardware-solutions.square.site/product/btclock/23?cs=true&cst=custom
For the rest I am on the same page than you. I have stopped considering buying Coinkite products 1-2 years ago when I saw how disrespectful NVK was with the Seedsigner project. Ironically I checked yesterday seedsigner.org and it was redirecting to Bitcoin knots...
I see... I checked the old group on Telegram I joined at the time. Dee said "We do destroy all customer data after 120 days". On their website it is written also "Remember to expect a “Your Data has been Blanked” email from Coinkite a few months after you interact with the store." (Source: https://blog.coinkite.com/paper-spam/)
And they defined personal data as "Personal information means information about an identifiable individual. This includes, for example, an individual’s name, home address, home phone number or e-mail address." (Source: https://coinkite.com/privacy)
So I guess this was more like political talk and "all customer data" didn't include "personal data" but only a specific subset of it.
It is quite convoluted.
Looking again at your screenshot it might be appropriate to remember the song of the Monty Python movie Life of Brian, at the end when the Romans killed Jesus: "Always look at the bright side of life [whistles]"
I could not remember if it was half a year or less, but what the screenshot shows was exactly my reaction when I saw their email.
I totally understand they want to contact people, this is legitimate. I also totally understand they keep logs. And this is legitimate to think that warning potential users who didn't move their money was ethically a good act. But saying that they removed customer data was a lie. I even remember an email from a bot saying my data was removed (I didn't ask but totally fine by the way).
That's quite a mess. But I don't want to make people angry so lol.
I didn't think about this one, good point. We may save time by deleting our email alias for Coinkite for those who used one.
I actually use openrouter to access many models, and we can have web search also enabled with it:
https://openrouter.ai/announcements/introducing-web-search-via-the-api
Was there anything besides this feature which makes you prefer Requesty over open router?
I had similar experiences with ChatGPT 3.5 in the past. I was feeding it matrices and it was consistently generating wrong answers with calculations. I swear I would never use it again.
Then came ChatGPT 4.o. I think for people who want to learn a foreign language it became useful and funny.
Plus it became useful for math, at least for me. I do calculations and I check my results with those of ChatGPT. If it matches, I consider it is likely correct, else I re-check. After re-checking if it still doesn't match, I keep my calculations and ignore those of ChatGPT. This way I never got disappointed anymore with it, since I use it as a tool to do double checks.
For coding, I feel like Claude can also give valuable answers sometimes better than ChatGPT. Recently I asked both to build an algorithm to convert a Golang algorithm to Python to encrypt passwords... And the results were consistently 100% totally wrong. Very disappointing isn't it? But in this case I was double checking with a good Golang version by decrypting the encrypted password. So with this kind of check I could immediately spot incorrect code. Disappointing but fine since the only negative impact was to lose a little bit of my time working on it.
Bottom line regarding code, Claude can be good as well but currently more expensive, and regardless this is really important to have unit tests or some kind of test to double check results.
So for coding I use it more like a very advanced auto-completion tool. E.g.: I want to read a CSV file and parse it a particular way, then it gives me the code right away. Or I want to write a SQL statement to show some statistics about a metric, it writes it. Its use is tremendously good to save time but everything has to be constantly double-checked by testing the code, or by doing a quick visual check, or by comparing carefully results if money is involved and it is extremely important that the code must be right.
For me the main issue with Zeus is the battery discharge rate.
I think it needs improvement on this side.
For example with Tailscale I can access my Umbrel node from mobile and save battery time without using Zeus.
The idea of running a lightning node on mobile is really appealing though.
My battery is an relatively old 4000mAh.
This could explain why I see so much Euro trades on Robosats.
It has been more than 2 years I think I have left CEXes. Now I have peace of mind and don't have to think about the next time I will have to renew my KYC info or to think about what to do when my account won't be working anymore.
In the past I was a Swan Bitcoin customer, I think the platform had 3 times issues in the span of 1-2 years because of some new regulation or partner/internal issues.
Thank you, I will take a look.
Trying to find what could possibly go wrong I was wondering also if the assumption of independence of events is still valid if two dice collide. So I would toss the dice one after the other just in case, as the math behind assume rolls are independent events.
If you look at lottery events they probably use a machine to roll dice to guarantee independence of events. I don't want to be too paranoid there too and discourage you though.