brunswick
Brunswick

{ "id": "a5923befdd61f12c66a3821f01aa26830d534a637e5676105908c92f2e9d72fd", "pubkey": "c1e9ab3a56a2ab6ca4bebf44ea64b2fda40ac6311e886ba86b4652169cb56b43", "created_at": 1785380343, "kind": 0, "tags": [ [ "alt", "User profile for brunswick" ], [ "name", "brunswick" ], [ "display_name", "Brunswick" ], [ "picture", "https://npub1c856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsmq6lkc.blossom.band/bfa844f57b19899f1417560ca955e2fda2281f466599101a69aaa3118dd6423e.jpg" ], [ "banner", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/John_Everett_Millais_The_Black_Brunswicker.jpg/1280px-John_Everett_Millais_The_Black_Brunswicker.jpg" ], [ "website", "https://highlighter.com/Brunswick@stacker.news/articles" ], [ "about", "GM☕ since [759233](https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000023ab241141d6cd0d0ea2f41295a830a6724407d450211)\n\nI'm not vegan, BTW.\n\n[Free Chauvin](https://alphanews.org/?s=chauvin)" ], [ "nip05", "Brunswick@stacker.news" ], [ "lud16", "shortchapel988@minibits.cash" ], [ "client", "Amethyst" ], [ "clink_offer", "noffer1qvqsyqjyxv6njcf5xd3rwwfcvgenye35xg6nzdmxxfjnvv3cv43nyvmpv43kyd3kxg6kgd3nxqexyetyxp3nzd3cvvunsd35v5cnyepcv4sk2drxv5mkvqg6waehxw309aehgunxwfujuumgda3kktnwv468wmmjdvqzqahdghcqe6nm43va359h6gzgfr6nr8tmjmq5plaklja24v9p84zwdz7ydt" ], [ "i", "github:BrunswickBTC", "d9124e8c3754865d4f56310c68c981a5" ] ], "content": "{\"name\":\"brunswick\",\"about\":\"GM☕ since [759233](https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000023ab241141d6cd0d0ea2f41295a830a6724407d450211)\\n\\nI'm not vegan, BTW.\\n\\n[Free Chauvin](https://alphanews.org/?s=chauvin)\",\"nip05\":\"Brunswick@stacker.news\",\"picture\":\"https://npub1c856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsmq6lkc.blossom.band/bfa844f57b19899f1417560ca955e2fda2281f466599101a69aaa3118dd6423e.jpg\",\"lud16\":\"shortchapel988@minibits.cash\",\"username\":\"BrunswickBTC\",\"display_name\":\"Brunswick\",\"displayName\":\"Brunswick\",\"banner\":\"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/John_Everett_Millais_The_Black_Brunswicker.jpg/1280px-John_Everett_Millais_The_Black_Brunswicker.jpg\",\"website\":\"https://highlighter.com/Brunswick@stacker.news/articles\",\"clink_offer\":\"noffer1qvqsyqjyxv6njcf5xd3rwwfcvgenye35xg6nzdmxxfjnvv3cv43nyvmpv43kyd3kxg6kgd3nxqexyetyxp3nzd3cvvunsd35v5cnyepcv4sk2drxv5mkvqg6waehxw309aehgunxwfujuumgda3kktnwv468wmmjdvqzqahdghcqe6nm43va359h6gzgfr6nr8tmjmq5plaklja24v9p84zwdz7ydt\"}", "sig": "956047c6482f8de9f2eebd008a52e26799d47225f25c91a4875c3471ecb937cccc3745ec6a4851caa35350dec6d24a2e2d23c6f1f9020b0643de06a69cc548f0" }

Last Notes

2026-08-16 14:21:36 UTC

- reply

True, if you have a good BM, you will also have a GM

2026-08-15 00:47:26 UTC

- reply

Yes. Men don't shelter women from deception -> women use their bodies to brainwash men -> everyone ends up retarded

2026-08-14 20:35:22 UTC

- reply

Women are easier to deceive

2026-08-13 19:10:14 UTC

- reply

I coded an app extension using nothing but Luna. It probably required more iterations, but I feel like the result is very locked in because of the gradual implicit requirements discovery and acceptance criteria along the way.

2026-08-13 19:05:16 UTC

- reply

Have you tried switching to the Luna model? It's pretty good and way cheaper

2026-08-11 20:14:18 UTC

- reply

He doesent want to show is face after that catastrophically fake crying performance

2026-08-10 19:54:27 UTC

- reply

8 pro

2026-08-10 17:49:17 UTC

- reply

Same here. Grapheneos has become sluggish over the past few weeks/months. For example, the share button takes 5 to 10 seconds to come up. The "attach" button often takes more than 10 seconds. Logging in with Google OAuth in an app takes 15 seconds to respond. Authenticating with fingerprint often takes at least 5 seconds. Sending an email with freemail pauses several seconds before even asking how to send it, and sometimes 20 to 30 seconds to search a folder.

2026-08-10 15:45:54 UTC

- reply

Are you arguing for opening up OP_RETURN or are you arguing that onchain spam is part of the financial function of bitcoin? Why are you arguing with obvious factually wrong arguments? Yes the chain can't grow any faster than the limits. The question is whether you should change the code to allow spammers free reign to post contiguous chunks of data on the blockchain. Core said yes, BIP110 said no. It's a simple question.

2026-08-10 14:11:56 UTC

- reply

No. Either your nsec has been compromised or you have lost your mind. In either case, you are not Jack.

2026-08-10 03:46:06 UTC

- reply

Jack is crashing out

2026-08-10 03:22:03 UTC

- reply

We understand it and stand against it. It was done counter to most of the devs, the ones who weren't kissing DEI feet that is, were also against it. What the fuck is wrong with you Jack? You are smarter than this, but then you pretend to "not understand technology". Are you seriously swayed by the core leadership's decisions? Why would you believe them for their "expertise" but then not trust the US treasury and federal reserve for their ability to "manage the money supply"? Core, with no doubt whatsoever acted in bad faith, and you insinuate they had a legitimate reason to do it? The only ONE reason would have been to create division, maybe for good, maybe for bad, but either way they succeeded.

2026-08-10 03:11:56 UTC

- reply

You are not Jack

2026-08-10 00:57:07 UTC

- reply

China and Japan are crashing the markets in the us tomorrow. If you are going to make a move consider your timing

2026-08-09 22:41:36 UTC

- reply

Win the battle, lose the war.

2026-08-09 20:54:51 UTC

- reply

You're celebrating from the prison camp

2026-08-09 18:23:50 UTC

Good luck to Bitcoin without its toxic maxis

2026-08-09 17:01:30 UTC

- reply

I took BIP110 on the merits of what it actually set out to do. Whatever you believe about the person who made changes nothing. Bit you went along with the diatribe that it is all about Luke. No, it is about limiting the use of bitcoin to monetary function and keeping it clean from an outcry for legitimate government intervention (regardless of they can intervene). This is one of several reasons bitcoin does not have private (zk) transactions, to keep it auditable. You yourself condoned buying only KYC bitcoin so it is "washed" by the exchange and "pristine" and not colored by illegal and immoral activity like paying hitmen or being routed through a sanctioned country. You can dismiss the problem introduced by allowing unencrypted and unlimited contiguous data chunks placed on your computer, but IMO this is the biggest danger to what core did. They called attention to it by making it worse, and Luke was the only one proposing a solution. Everyone else cried, twisted their undies, and fainted on couches claiming "we can do nothing about spam". This is not arguing in good faith, and you of all people fucking fell for it.
So what do I get? This bullshit "argumentation" from the greatest marketing genius ever born leading with a stupid question "how can it ever work, asshole?". Well fuck you right back at you. This isn't about whether it works, it's about convincing people the problem exists and can be confronted, and showing everyone what they allowed to happen to their sacred " bitcoin devs" controlled by "core". Ha! "Core", that name alone should have sent up red flags. BIP110 was only addressing part of the problem. Again, you of all people should understand this, but maybe you're just too cowardly of ending up on the "wrong side of history". There are no heros in bitcoin, they all fall from glory, and I'm not in this for glory. I want to separate money from state.

2026-08-09 12:49:09 UTC

- reply

It shows the miners incentives do not align with the ideals of sound money. Satoshi stated bitcoin depends on miners being "honest". We found out miner centralization has caused them to be structurally unsound .

2026-08-09 03:53:06 UTC

- reply

The fork isnt over yet

2026-08-08 19:37:06 UTC

Watching burnouts while the MASF deadline approaches
https://npub1c856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsmq6lkc.blossom.band/c695b7d533cf5dbb0fded4b31dabea34bc99b26d5789a38fa64e8a0478e2a949.jpg
#nevent1q…6usu

2026-08-08 19:04:24 UTC

80 minutes
#nevent1q…sera

2026-08-07 18:04:50 UTC

- reply

You should have limited access to btcpay server to only receive funds in your LND macaroon

2026-08-07 17:21:04 UTC

- reply

It was not believable. It looked like bad acting. True remorse does not look like crying on camera.

2026-08-07 16:12:53 UTC

- reply

Do nothing and your peers can close channels on BIP110 fork, now the lightning channel state is divided. The best scenerio other than closing all channels before the fork is you freeze all your channels while the chain could fork, not "do nothing".

2026-08-07 15:31:15 UTC

- reply

Scenerio C: chains fork, a lightning channel closes. One peer switched to BIP110, the other didn't. Each peer has channel open in one chain, but closed on another. The "recovery" path is to run a node with the other chain, and run a second lightning node, or "sweep" the channel on the other chain hoping the other peer doesent punish you for doing an asymmetrical close on both chains.

2026-08-07 15:09:11 UTC

- reply

Scenerio A) BIP110 "fails" - lightning channels are fine
Scenerio B) Large OP_RETURN is mined, BIP110 nodes reject, chain split... 5% of the market refuses to buy non-BIP110 fork, bitcoin price collapses, miners pull back unprofitable hashpower, exchanges are first to comply with BIP110, miners need to sell their coin on the premium exchanges so they switch to the softfork. As long as you aren't opening and closing lightning channels during this chaos, your node is fine, but some of the nodes you route through may be inadvertently exchanging core-coin for bip-coin, and if the core chain dies, those nodes will have channels with peers containing a shitcoin.

2026-08-07 14:12:51 UTC

- reply

June non-farm is half of estimate?
How is it possible government jobs declined, isn't that considered a Satanist's worst sin?

2026-08-07 05:29:51 UTC

@nprofile…6sk3 when will you return the bitcoin your employee stole from your customers

2026-08-06 19:58:27 UTC

- reply

That looks IMPOSSIBLE for adults! I need a 9 year old to do that for me.
That dice wallet looks cool, I havent heard of it

2026-08-06 18:43:17 UTC

- reply

Why would I perform these calculations for you, and if I did, what does it prove? How you feel about the fork doesent change anything. Are you trying to get me to "give up?" because you have established nothing with your response. You must be new to thinking because you're very bad at it.

2026-08-06 18:00:17 UTC

- reply

There are people just learning about BIP110 now.
They are being told "moral crusaders are trying to take over bitcoin".
Many that heard about it and never looked into it thought it was already "settled" months ago.
Many think you will see a success or fail on Saturday.
Many think the miners have the final say.
Many think a node has no influence, but then point at a network statistic interpreted to mean something that it does not.
Many think "big money" sets the terms.
This is normal.
Nobody is "calling it off", the wheels were set in motion and nobody can stop it.
No "devs" have decided to "change the schedule" or "delay the fork".
Nearly everything you read is wrong.
You can scream at those that are in favor of it.
You can attack the character and demean those who had the balls to call their bluff.
You can misrepresent what BIP110 does and is about.
Your internal angst changes nothing. The decision has been made. Now it's a matter of the market catching up.
The rules that represent the best version of bitcoin will prevail. Not on a schedule, not on a deadline, not at the option of miners or based on the number of nodes, but based on whichever rules meets the needs of the bulk of people who transact in it. Whether BIP110 meets its own self-imposed limits if irrelevant.
BIP110 is accomplishing exactly what it set out to do - force people to decide whether they are for or against spam. Not whether they will adopt 110, but whether - when given the option - they will choose to limit spam or to remove down all limits to it. The question can't be clearer, and the most important communal development isn't the answer, it is to clarify the question.
Will the real bitcoin please stand up?

2026-08-06 17:36:08 UTC

- reply

They are throwing everything they have at BIP110. Much FUD, many lies, too many are swayed. It doesent matter, the enemy must be dealt with and many will cold feet before battle is normal.

2026-08-06 04:07:28 UTC

- reply

Yes, bit who is the miner mining for? The person buying the bitcoin from them. Who is buying it? Whoever has money and conviction to buy it. Does that mean institutional money controls the concensus because they control the most liquidity? Jack says yes. I say no, money doesn't work that way. The value comes from those who accept it for goods and services, not speculators on wallstreet.

2026-08-06 03:29:39 UTC

- reply

#nevent1q…299y

2026-08-06 03:25:04 UTC

- reply

Yes that's why it's disturbing coming from him

2026-08-06 03:24:41 UTC

- reply

He says bitcoin is defined by institutional money and miners only and their "big economic nodes" and that hodling plebs with nodes have nothing to say about it. Either he's being a troll, or we are seeing a gigantic divide in the bitcoin community. There are other cracks, but IMO this is the St Andreas fault line. It has nothing to do with bip110, but the BIP certainly does expose it.
If this were the case, and he is right, then there is no difference between bitcoin, ethereum, ripple, CBDCs and every other crypto. All that matters is whichever has the most money behind it, the big-money calls the shots and the plebs are the chumps who just do what they're told. This is a straight up inversion of everything Jack stands for, which is quite disturbing.

2026-08-06 02:59:20 UTC

- reply

Its not just BIP110. He's turning bitcoin on its head.

2026-08-06 02:35:17 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin. If it is what he says it is, the whole fucking thing is bitcon

2026-08-06 02:32:55 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…r542 is making me question my assumptions. Not a good day.

2026-08-05 21:01:09 UTC

- reply

You want guarantees. There are no guarantees. Changing code does not settle questions determined by the market.

2026-08-05 19:45:12 UTC

- reply

Ok I understand your argument. The pathway to winning is the game theory laid out by bitcoin mechanic. I'm not going to repeat it here.
First, let's get our definitions right. What you call an "economic node" probably carries more weight in one area and less in another than the way I understand it. To start there as part of your foundation is weak sand, not because you are right or wrong, but because that starts us shouting past ones other right out the gate. I think you mean economic nodes are primarily those used by miners, exchanges and truster custodians like coinbase. I define an economic node to mean anyone running a node that uses it to assay their own bitcoin.
The second issue is "you are all nuts because what you are proposing will not work". What do you mean by "work"? Do you mean you will algorithmically with software determine which version of the blockchain is the "real" bitcoin? Do you mean that everything will change on August 8th? Do you mean if the MASF fails, then the UASF will also fail? How can you know this? These are not software questions, these are market dynamics questions.
So let's debate the underlying question rather than the minutae. I'm going to read your mind here, because I havent heard you or anyone else make this argument.
I think you mean that bitcoin is defined by whomever controls the software supporting the most liquidity, and "big players" will never accept BIP110.
This is certainly a valid argument. Here I do not claim to know the answer, but I do have a contravening theory: the big players are only into bitcoin because of the small players, and it is precisely the victims of the CK/CC attack that set the pace for the big players and determine what is and what is and what is not bitcoin. The "big guys" are only along for the ride, are not idealistic HODLets, and only have liquidity in bitcoin at all to leech off whatever value they can. This squarely places the power in the small economic nodes, that is the individual, family or small business HODLing bitcoin and they will only retain the bulk of value in whichever version they believe is the most effective at winning the war bitcoin was created for: separating control of the creation of money from the state.
This is why BIP110 should win, because it represents more what bitcoin is for than the big-blockers and the unlimited OP_RETURN/core crowd.

2026-08-05 15:38:48 UTC

- reply

Saying you have explained it "Down to the code consensus level" isn't helping me understand your argument. I can address the technical arguments, and the social arguments, but they are not the same and it looks like you are confusing one for the other. The fork process isn't controlled by the code. Concensus has multiple meanings, and forks aren't controlled purely by code.
Sorry, your frustration with other people isn't something I should be held accountable to compensate for, and I won't. If you want to engage, please include links to these arguments. If they are x links, I wont see them unless you change them into xcancel.com because I'm through with X's refusal to allow anyone to see posts without having an account.

2026-08-05 15:27:48 UTC

- reply

So you aren't arguing whether BIP-110 is right or wrong, you're arguing that it will fail therefore it's a waste of time to talk about?

2026-08-05 15:13:41 UTC

- reply

I get the exact same thing from anti-bip-110 people.

2026-08-05 14:24:05 UTC

- reply

I saw some of this when I was in a Christian peer group of business owners, but at the time I was seeking the wrong thing from the group, and didn't benefit as much as I might have. I would have been better off if I looked at it like this, that it's more important to be with a cohort that are successful and to focus on what they are doing right rather than exclusively focusing on what you are doing wrong.

2026-08-05 14:03:33 UTC

This is a good argument and a good explanation of the strategic timing of exposing the coldcard hack.
To scare people into moving their coin into exchanges, takes away their decision about which side of the fork they want to control. If you decide for one or the other side, the exchange will have control over the same funds on the other side of the fork.
#nevent1q…0gx2

2026-08-05 13:58:55 UTC

- reply

I should have thought of that. Now it makes sense why they would do this now.

2026-08-05 06:03:08 UTC

- reply

How are they different?

2026-08-05 06:00:33 UTC

- reply

I did a quick search and it looks like you are locked out of reading the bootloader from the device. There is no way to know what is in there.

2026-08-05 05:59:32 UTC

A friend put his coldcard bitcoin on @nprofile…qwmd .
This is a smart move until you put together and test your new cold storage system.

2026-08-05 05:51:13 UTC

Has anyone other than me thought of reverse compiling cohnkite's bootloader and reverse engineering it with AI to see if there are any more backdoors built into this thing? IIRC, the bootloader was closed source. I assume it's not fused out of allowing someone to read it out of ROM?
#nevent1q…3rct

2026-08-05 05:41:47 UTC

- reply

This is an Owen Benjamin joke

2026-08-04 14:04:21 UTC

- reply

https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-90B

2026-08-04 04:29:29 UTC

- reply

Saylor probably used the coldcard to generate his keys, now his lettuce hands wants out

2026-08-04 04:05:18 UTC

- reply

I hear there is a number used in the seed generation that is unique to each device. Prove you own the device, you prove you created the keys

2026-08-04 04:02:09 UTC

- reply

If coinkite really cared at all, they would use their manufacturing serial number information and their source code and grab all the bitcoin on behalf of its customers, then publish the utxos they recovered and distribute them back after proof is provided the customer owns the device from which it originated.

2026-08-04 00:50:54 UTC

- reply

Security - meets in Vegas
Not good opsec

2026-08-03 18:37:20 UTC

- reply

"Emergency RHR" 5 days later...

2026-08-03 18:36:28 UTC

- reply

Anyone on the board of opensats should be considered a pariah, including odell, for participating in whatever they were doing in conjunction with NVK.

2026-08-03 15:31:59 UTC

- reply

If you want to make more rolls, I suppose you could do that. It would give you one bit of entropy per roll. You might also say even is a 1 and odd is a 0. But you can't hand-calculate your seed phrase from only that. The checksums still need to be calculated.

2026-08-03 15:28:37 UTC

- reply

Not necessarily. I don't know his religion

2026-08-03 15:08:36 UTC

- reply

Now we know what he meant by "DETERMINISTIC OPTIMISM"

2026-08-03 14:54:03 UTC

- reply

#nevent1q…a852

2026-08-03 14:36:58 UTC

Bits_of_entropy * log(2) / log(6) = dice_rolls

2026-08-03 14:20:43 UTC

- reply

At a minimum

2026-08-03 14:06:53 UTC

- reply

Follow the money

2026-08-03 14:02:06 UTC

- reply

Its curious its "CEO" seems to live a life completely devoid of hard work. Behaves much like a "weather bunny" frontman for the actual directors and managers. You make opensats look like an NGO for funneling covert finance to support activities that are unprofitable on their own.

2026-08-03 13:56:20 UTC

- reply

Sorry for your loss. Cutting that cord is consequential.

2026-08-03 13:31:15 UTC

- reply

There will be different interest rates. Low rates on low inflation currencies, high rates on high inflation currencies.

2026-08-03 00:46:38 UTC

- reply

Same

2026-08-03 00:32:12 UTC

- reply

Why would I go there?

2026-08-02 23:28:11 UTC

- reply

Not my problem. Secure element hardware wallets are a bad idea to begin with.

2026-08-02 21:32:30 UTC

- reply

The OS must be reproducible and traceable. Drilling through the source packages and should be enough. I don't know enough about how seedsigner set up their port, but I've done a fair amount of platform development with Debian. If its buildroot or yocto, being roll-your-own isn't quite the liability you imply.
3 months of two people should be sufficient to follow these rabbit holes. You can dispute the amount, but I do this kind of thing all the time. I'm bidding on three projects of this size right now
Maybe some security firms would be more efficient, and that's why I'd get several bids from firms that serve different industries. Yes, of course it would need to be a mix of experts. I did say swag. I'm sure some would say my estimate is way too low. Thats not the phase of discovery we are at. I'm only trying to give an order of magnitude to set up the contractual infrastructure appropriate for this task.
The actual fundraising goal would come after a firm is selected and they have provided a proposal with itemized task-list, SOW and phase-gate payment agreement that can be shared publicly.

2026-08-02 18:29:48 UTC

- reply

Better at what?

2026-08-02 18:29:18 UTC

Does anyone know how to set up a proper escrow for raising 3 BTC to fund a code audit of open-source code? I could do the legal legwork, write up contracts, identify several candidates to perform the audit, but is there an established simple mechanism for collecting the bitcoin other than turning it all over to opensats?
#nevent1q…jkvx

2026-08-02 17:18:02 UTC

- reply

Hardware wallets are convenience devices.
Hardware wallets are not able to improve your security.
The most secure you can be is having a fireproof stamped-in-steel multisig keyset geographically distributed.
Spending your cold storage shouldn't be convenient.
L2 is for day-to-day spending, and right now, the best option is lightning, and if you don't want to self-custody your lightning wallet, run one with an LSP that provides some guarantees like reimbursement insurance.
Self-custody is hard. If you aren't up for it, trust coinbase with your bitcoin.
In any case, buy insurance if you're worried.

2026-08-02 17:12:27 UTC

Saylor's new backdoor sabotage counter-intelligence: you only need 0.1 BTC because bitcoin is going to 1,000,000.
So... If you hodl 0.1BTC, when it goes to 1,000,000 then you'll have... $100,000 and that is the end-game for bitcoin? Everyone can buy 7,000 in bitcoin, and sell for 100,000. That's Saylor's value proposition?
Seriously, Saylor talks a good game, but he appears to be what he always has been - a wallstreet, value-leeching, fiat-brain opportunist with no scruples or desire to improve the condition of mankind, but to simply smash and grab whatever he can before anyone realizes what he is up to.
https://npub1c856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsmq6lkc.blossom.band/4c0fe05df8a07a49bcb7962250ecae426fa0bacc603dc89824ef43afa1d65cc7.jpg

2026-08-02 16:49:51 UTC

- reply

If your only copy of your seed is stored in a secure element on a hardware wallet, you are seriously, seriously fucked.

2026-08-02 16:41:07 UTC

- reply

999 out 1000 chance coinkite won't refund or replace the devices they bricked.

2026-08-02 16:29:57 UTC

- reply

We are on the bleeding edge of money, self-reliance, theology, self-defense, stewardship, truthful measures and honest exchange, and winning in the most important way: lovingly raising new godly bitcoiners

2026-08-02 13:54:25 UTC

- reply

Yes, it was way too late to make any difference. It was pure CYA

2026-08-02 13:53:06 UTC

- reply

I got an email from coinkite mid-2024, about 6 months after I created a profile on their website. The email indicates they delete my "personal" data but "preserved the email address for now," implying they will delete my email address. So much for that plan, because I also recieved the security advisory email from them.
https://npub1c856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsmq6lkc.blossom.band/a86a33ccb3a67bcce52a09def6b66185270476929d861a1f570594e5f9c88efe.jpg

2026-08-02 13:41:44 UTC

One can get a reasonable code audit performed on the @nprofile…u2rf firmware with 2 FTEs for somewhere between 2 and 3 months, that is from 1000 to 1250 hours. The going rate for US-based firmware engineering firm for a small project like this is between $150 and $200/hour. I swag it should cost between $150,000 and $250,000 to audit the code and produce a report for seedsigner.
#nevent1q…pu6x

2026-08-02 07:01:46 UTC

Remember to be thankful, especially in your darkest hour. God will reward you for your loyalty

2026-08-02 01:03:32 UTC

- reply

Why do you think you need a vendor?

2026-08-02 00:59:29 UTC

- reply

Scott Horton is amazing

2026-08-01 22:22:54 UTC

In case you're wondering, a certain Canadian is from São Paulo. Most of these ambiguously Germanic/Jewish surnames first appeared in the major metropolitan areas of Brazil about 70 to 80 years ago, were from the Ashkenazi diaspora. Of whom the men tended to mix with the women of the region and produce children akin to a light-skinned native. These children, naturally, tend to be very educationally oriented and technologically competent.
#nevent1q…6r65

2026-08-01 20:45:11 UTC

https://npub1c856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsmq6lkc.blossom.band/2a11826b35111987b2ee5786b7ce05213ff585d3732b5a122cdd6f250861255a.jpg

2026-08-01 20:19:18 UTC

- reply

I don't have a coldcard, so I'm a little disconnected from this trauma. I'm mainly concerned about identifying the problem and the solution.

2026-08-01 19:40:19 UTC

I propose fundraising to have @nprofile…u2rf given a formal third party independent code review.
How is this done properly? Is this something @nprofile…4dl5 is interested in?
#nevent1q…qfxm

2026-08-01 19:00:44 UTC

@nprofile…4vwu twisted "open for inspection" into an excuse to not pay for a third party independent design review. This bug, hanging out there for years, proves nobody will look at your code if they don't have an incentive to do so.
- Your customers are paying for your product and relying on your credibility for having done due diligence before releasing code, therefore an honest customer has no incentive to audit your code for you because they are paying you for security.
- Coinkite has an incentive to pay for an independent audit and review, but they failed to do so, therefore damaging their credibility, which is their primary bluesky asset.
- A hacker has an incentive to audit your code, particularly if there is a large pot-o-gold sitting there if they find a vulnerability.
- A developer who branches your code and bases their own product on it has an incentive to audit your code, merely to understand it enough to use it for his own purposes.
I hope NVK carries a large liability insurance policy. I do not wish him harm.
Therefore coinkite has demonstrated a lack of due diligence, and given NVK's leadership and public displays of arrogance, protectiveness, dismissing of criticism; to "lose" him as an "asset of the community" is no loss at all, and it is reasonable to ostracize anyone who would grant him immunity.
He should, however, be welcome back after a complete repentance and substantial recompense to those he has harmed through his corporation.

2026-08-01 17:48:58 UTC

If you made a mistake by not throwing dice when setting up your coinkite, and put your life savings in a single-signature wallet, blame yourself.
Don't lose sight of the goal, bitcoin is still bitcoin.

2026-08-01 17:20:08 UTC

NVK is short for Novak, apparently.
Novak means "newbie"
https://surnamedb.com/Surname/Novak
#nevent1q…sddv

2026-07-31 18:24:49 UTC

- reply

Using Aai to audit code is better than nothing, but it doesent replace a professional third party audit. I would have caught this.

2026-07-31 17:21:58 UTC

- reply

Blame everyone else for not auditing the coinkite code rather than blame coinkite for having their code audited.

2026-07-31 14:41:09 UTC

- reply

I am not thinking anything. Simply stating a fact. The product design required trust in the developer and the company. Granted, very little, but still some. This randomness issue should have been a central focus of the dev, and if it couldn't be proven, the feature should have been removed. This is evidence of architectural failure. Whether flaws were designed-in to be exploited at some plausibly deniable distance-in-time, or if they were pure mistakes, still shows an architectural failure in the system and design goals.
A product like this should retain zero "trust me bro" in the design. I was never comfortable with recommending it to friends and family. When they would ask about it, I would say "I'm not sure, but it looks like a good option". Never would I saw "This is provably secure with generating and storing your keys". There were too many unaddressed concerns, where there should have been none. I treated them as newbie devices.
When you pile on the pattern of behavior of the developer when confronted with criticism, that adds to the concern.
Now that a bug has been exposed that, from a design perspective, in my opinion should have been left out as a feature because of pure uncertainty around lack of audit, the evidence points to the direction that coinkite's judgment should be questioned and treated adversarially. This should have already been understood even without evidence to the effect. One should always verify and not trust. When you cannot verify, then your alternative is still not to trust. Your alternative is to find a way to eliminate trust.
I'd like to know why people should entertain less secure alternatives as a replacement when there is @nprofile…u2rf

2026-07-31 14:22:36 UTC

- reply

By @nprofile…2szn ?

2026-07-31 14:21:30 UTC

- reply

I never had a good feeling about the coldcard. To require even a modicum of trust in the supply chain the developer or the design is too much trust. Coinkite spent too much time with security theater and not enough time designing all trust out of the product.

2026-07-31 14:17:54 UTC

- reply

There is no way to prove the bug was unintentional