Giving people the opportunity to put less trust in centralized third parties is not "UX regression". When a commercial HWW verifies firmware/software at power-on, users are trusting they're using authentic hardware, and they're outsourcing the verification process to the same entity that produces both the hardware and the software. For many users these choices will make sense, but for some they won't -- it's good for people to have options to choose from.

The read-only CD backup is a clever idea. The shelf-life of optical discs isn't terribly long but could be a good fit for this use case. 🧡 View quoted note →

TLDR for those who missed this: . RPi 0, 0W, 02W, 2 & 3 have permanent ROM that is burned in at the factory . "Firmware" is split between the Pi AND the microSD . Verifying the code on the microSD is authentic is vital, but simple . Sharing a signer is not ideal, but can be viable w/ trusted 3rd parties View quoted note →

For clarity, the SeedSigner only stores keys temporarily until power is disconnected, but it does make getting comfortable with multisig a lot easier. ☺️ View quoted note →

🤯 View quoted note →

Last few have been a little jarring -- really appreciate my ride-or-die SeedSigner peeps, you know who you are. 🧡

This made me LoL. In seriousness, I appreciate all of the pods who have had me or someone else from the project on as a guest, especially those who have a HWW sponsor and are still willing to talk about other options. 🧡 View quoted note →

Nominal amt of sats to post seems like it would go a long way to resolve the spam issue. Pretty painful right now.

SMH, LoL.

A FOSS tool built by bitcoiners, for bitcoiners, shared one bitcoiner at a time. View quoted note →

Perspective worth considering from our project's Telegram community.

Telegram

SeedSigner Community

Group Invite Link: https://t.me/joinchat/GHNuc_nhNQjLPWsS

After witnessing several orange-pilling sessions in Curaçao last week, am thinking that cashu.me with a solid mint like minibits is one of the lowest friction ways to quickly get some sats into a noob's hands.

I cosign this. View quoted note →

"I had a few similar donations in the last week or so. Personally find it very encouraging." (a quote from one of our contributors) Now that we're about a week after the 0.8.0 release, if you're a SeedSigner user and you're getting value from the project, or if you just want to support freedom tools, please donate to our most active contributors. We have a lighting-enabled workflow that you can use to directly support those who have worked to build SeedSigner into the amazing tool that it is. Even if it's a small amount, each donation gives these contributors a little bit of encouragement to keep going. 🧡

SeedSigner: Air-gapped DIY Bitcoin Signing Device

Donate - SeedSigner: Air-gapped DIY Bitcoin Signing Device

It is jointly managed by 5 key stakeholders in the SeedSigner project and earmarked to support the work of our developers!

The sleeping like a baby part has been my goal with our project all along. Different people have different concerns; given my unique background and perspective, SeedSigner is what has brought myself, as well as many others peace. Proud to be helping to build one of several different approaches to sleeping like a baby when it comes to saving with bitcoin. 🧡 View quoted note →

X-posting this from the bird app, a continuation of my thoughts from earlier. cc @Lyn Alden I continue to think about this and the challenge is that it's much harder to profit from freedom tech (it's users are generally more anonymous and the software more freely distributed); centrally controlled systems are much easier to monetize and extract value from. But it realistically costs time and money to build things, especially to build them well, so if funding is given it has to come from a place of idealism and hope with few strings, rather than from a place that is in search of investment multiples. Even grant money for FOSS tech in the bitcoin/nostr spaces is often tied to for-profit business models -- the nexus of venture and grant funding is a tricky place fraught with ethical pitfalls. Just find capable people with proven track records who are building for the greater good and support them. The @HRF does this best as an organization IMHO (kudos to @gladstein @ck et al). But also, personally dig in and really learn about projects that build freedom tech, and then give directly to the ones you think are doing important work. There are tons of high quality devs who work on freedom tech part time, or who flatly won't provide identity info for money. Direct donations reach these individuals whereas grants & bundled funds primarily target those working full time and who are willing to provide identity info for payment. Lastly, retroactive support for builders is highly underrated, and it's just ethically right. Capital allocaters and givers get too caught up in incentivizing what they think should be the next thing. If someone has built freedom tech that works and is contributing to the cause, financially thanking them puts some great incentives into play in that they feel appreciated (a deep human need), they will feel incentivized to improve / maintain what they've built, and they will often feel motivated to build the next important thing that no one else has thought of yet. You’re asking some of the right questions, and coming at this from a place of humility is a great approach.