Even with dual SE, both are vulnerable to laser fault injection. This could be solved easily by using a different SE but no, they upgrade to the newer version of the inherently flawed series of ATECC chips.
And they intentionally make it so that their devices turn to e waste instead of wiping the seed (like 90% of HWWs) if you forget your PIN for example.
Also, your money will go directly to propaganda against competitors like SeedSigner
With SE? Infineon chips are pretty good but some of them have a few vulns (does not affect the Trezor use though)
I cannot speak about their architecture fully though, will need to look into that.
Which ones would you like to know about?
But if it has “Bitcoin only” in its marketing, it 99% of the time falls under these categories.
clients also discard ordering info
I think we should add a new REQ-like message type meant for this with cursors
Most people think they are paying $150-$200 for an HWW.
What they are paying for is an overpriced gimmick with a very small amount of security added.
All the major HWWs, including their latest revisions, use insecure SEs or ones which a viable attack exists for.
Oh, I do hate it. But also I hate it less than NAT.
my ISP does not give v6 to even their business customers even though they could
ISPs have shit infrastructure
Yes.
What I said was being connected to cellular is the norm, and Wi-Fi is the exception.
So the amount of time you serve media for is limited.
So it would use mobile data to allow people to download…?
Then what you are running would not be a blossom server.
It would be a local media backup.
uploading a 1MB image and having it be loaded 2000 times (just appear for a second, especially on apps without cache, on every view by the same person) will eat 2GB+ of your mobile data
the sheer amount of stupidity on here is insane nostr:note1vltaxrmxckfpg0ra6zwxn39t4h965mfdqctm87mgej6srh6ahjeq8qsa7c
Arguably a higher chance of success that way.
Or if your team has Rust developers, start shouting that C++ is better
