One thing the recent hardware wallet RNG discussion reminded me of comes from my previous career. I owned and operated casinos in Colorado. Before a slot machine could ever be placed on our casino floor, manufacturers couldn't simply claim their random number generators or payback percentages were accurate. Those claims had to be independently tested and certified by the Colorado Division of Gaming. There were many competing slot machine manufacturers, just as there are many competing hardware wallet manufacturers today. Before either the casino owner or the public was put at risk, the RNG had to be independently tested and verified. Bitcoin is obviously different. We don't want a government regulator certifying hardware wallets. But the underlying principle still applies: Critical security claims shouldn't rely solely on marketing. They should be backed by independent verification. (Think "The Gold Standard" of Bitcoin wallets) Perhaps this is an area where the proposed Bitcoin Consortium could provide real value by publishing transparent testing methodologies, commissioning independent security reviews, and issuing public reports on entropy generation and other security-critical functions. Trustworthy systems can't be left solely in the hands of a marketing department.

Had a visit from these two today. Thought she was going to jump down for a second. #colorado

To generate Speed, there must be a quality about the movement and direction.

The law of big numbers is a classroom lesson I teach in reference to slot machine statistics (my casino background makes this mandatory), flowing into stars in the universe and grains of sand on earth. I use lessons like these as a good opportunity to mention Bitcoin security. Guessing someone's Bitcoin seed phrase would be as likely as finding one particular grain of sand on earth kind of stuff. It's difficult for my students to grasp numbers that big. I recently read an article comparing the number of stars in the universe with grains of sand on earth. The Winner?