If you’d want me to check, let me know.
BTClock fixes this… best part of open firmware is user control if the vendor abandons the product or does not implement functionality users want
I did.
They made an open source version of the same device that provides more control to users. If you are so pissed about this, then please stop buying phones because every phone is just a copy of an older design but with improvements.
the problem is there is nothing open source or even source viewable about the blockclock
BTClock is actually better because if you want you could turn it into a temperature sensor for example, or change the font, etc… with the Blockclock it is proprietary firmware you cannot modify
You need to press 3 333 times, I think you misread the manual. If you go over by just 1, you will have to press until the 32 bit counter overflows.
No, feel free to submit it again if you are unsure and I’ll remove your old response if you already did.
Also, a chance to add some more feedback :)
You did not do any research.
The Blockclock does not have open source design or software and is a proprietary commercial product.
The BTClock is an independent alternative that is meant to be able to be built DIY and is fully open source.
The great part is anyone can customize this base design to do anything they want or add custom functionality.
Using a trademark law in a baseless way does not help.
You can still register for the beta-test of my signing card, using security certified chips. Expecting samples ready by late 2025 Q1.
It also uses a custom platform with security-by-design, compared to the development approach of most other signers.
No bullshit claims, no cutting corners, no overpriced hardware.
https://forms.office.com/r/CxzzG4Wqam nostr:note1655030y7lvydpfguy5lzwntxtmqqpfqejk3ytdskq0dpvs49zmmqkypgxy
No. I’m referring to the class of attack used.
Laser fault injection has existed since 2005 and defenses can be implemented for the protection of the chip, such as light sensors.
There have been 3 revisions to the ATECC chips and they still do not incorporate light sensors while your cheap credit card or transit pass does.
Go see for yourself
Their org was taken down because “BTClock” is allegedly too similar to “BLOCKCLOCK” and they would think BTClock is a Coinkite product, even though their names are significantly different and they have different approaches (DIY vs closed source commercial)
It is likely that Coinkite will sue if BTClock does not comply and take down everything, and sends a counter-claim to GitHub
Apparently “BTClock” is too similar to “BLOCKCLOCK” and consumers would totally get confused that BTClock is a Coinkite product… and so they took all their repos and their GH org down
It is somewhat costly to exploit, but the fix is replacing one part with a drop in replacement. And this attack has existed since ~2005. Not informing users about this in general is pretty irresponsible.
And it is all because apparently BTClock is too similar to BLOCKCLOCK. Wtf?
Also, they have not disclosed vulnerabilities in the SEs they use in the Mk4 and Q, and have not upgraded to a drop-in replacement that is a newer version without those vulnerabilities.
Takedown for now. But it will probably be a lawsuit if a counter claim is made or they don’t comply
fixed my NIP-05
nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m will the Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund cover any expenses that may arise from Coinkite’s (what I view to be baseless) legal action against a competing open-source project, BTClock by nostr:npub1k5f85zx0xdskyayqpfpc0zq6n7vwqjuuxugkayk72fgynp34cs3qfcvqg2?