Replying to Avatar catdaddysoprano

Demanding FOSS with no exception makes the capital expenditure to assemble/deliver a physical wallet a daunting proposition... disincentivizes places like Coinkite to exist since it forces them into a race to do it the cheapest until the DIYer method just wins out with COTS options.

I can understand their decision to protect a portion of their code in the name of protecting the part of their business that assembles/delivers physical products.
Avatar
Expatriotic 11mo ago

They literally borrowed from trezer first and renamed the code base to remove trezor from it. Trezor called them out BTW.

Then get forked, and suddenly realized having a FOSS license means people can fork your shit, freak out, and close it up, shouting about "CLoNiNg" and "VC money"

At least foundation is still FOSS innit

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Dr. Bitcoin, MD 11mo ago

Not sure that’s accurate. CC uses secure chip, Trezor doesn’t. Not sure the code could run on both platforms.

I’m not arguing against FOSS. I think in the long run it’s the only way stuff stays around and relevant. It’s really a question of building a runway and when to go FOSS with one’s product.

For typical enterprise software, configuring the software is the product and thus the software is born free. But for single purpose easy to use devices, there is no service to sell, just the device.