Topic: [ESHOP launched] Trezor: Bitcoin hardware wallet - page 82. (Read 966173 times)

seems to me everybody is overreacting a bit.

I want trezor code to be continued to be developed by satoshilabs. I trust these guys and they have reacted quickly in the past to bug reports and security issues as witnessed regarding the firmware recently in public and a while ago by myself with an electrum interoperability issue (it was fixed within hours of me reporting it by ThomasV (electrum) and stick (trezor firmware)). I doubt the bwallet guys would've fixed anything that quickly: they're just freeriding.

I wouldn't trust the chinese copy-cats or even the opensource community with developing the firmware in a meaningful way (no incentive).

This is why I'm ok with paying a fat premium and if necessary I would support satoshilabs in other ways for continued maintenance and development of the codebase.

I think it's unfortunate that satoshilabs thinks they have to fight the chinese using men with guns, but I cannot change that. It's a decision by them we have to accept. I also think the 'backdating' of the license change is questionable (doesn't even work legally, I think), doesn't shed a good light. A better way could've been to change it honestly for versions > 1.3.0 and continue to make the firmware better. "Compete, don't whine and call for the state".

However, I do not think the licensing change will impact wallet integration negatively. A solution has to be found for altcoin devs, though.

I will continue to promote the trezor as the most secure hw wallet out there. I think reducing the price to somewhere between $60 and $99 would be a smart move, but that's only for satoshilabs to decide.

Ledger doesn't publish any source at all, at least the Trezor source is still available for audit. I don't agree with their decision but to consider Ledger all of the sudden better now, seems silly.

Stupid move on their part, ledger it is.

I am happy with my purchase even if they never make another update. We can still modify any source older than yesterday's and distribute it amongst ourselves. That stupid git trick makes no difference. We have an intact GPL repo from yesterday, even if they overwrote theirs.

While it isn't unheard of, it is fairly rare for open source projects to revert to being proprietary. Most high-profile instances of that happening have resulted in the project being forked and the original maintainers losing control of it. So no, it's not unreasonable to expect an open-source project to stay that way.

In this case, while I'm hoping that an effort to maintain the LGPL version of the Trezor firmware will take off, I suspect that the project may be too small at this point. The Trezor's install base isn't very large, and additional people likely to participate in such an effort are now unlikely to buy a Trezor.


I did buy an open-source hardware wallet. That's the basis of my complaint.  ಠ_ಠ

Possibly my fault. I wrote "closed transaction server" when I meant "closed source transaction server". Although it should be obvious what I meant from the context

All what's happening now is sad, but myTrezor.com is NOT going down. I have no idea how that became a topic. I did not see alena, slush or stick comment on this yet which they eventually will. Let's voice opinion that we don't like it and let them reconsider and release some official statement. In the meantime keep calm and don't expect myTrezor to vanish.

My personal opinion is that they never gave a promise that ALL future versions of the device will be open source and it's foolish to expect that. If you don't like that buy other open source wallet (shame no other HW wallet is open source and I don't count BWallet as "other" wallet for that matter) or just stay at 1.3.0 firmware that was released as open source. I also think that the rebase of sources was a bad decision and it also has no effect. Bad decisions happen. Even I do them! It's a problem only if you don't reconsider. People retrieved latest version of the open-sourced code with GPL licences so nothing prevents anybody to use yesterday's sorces with GPL licence: https://github.com/rfree/trezor-mcu-gpl/commits/master-gpl if they change licence now, I don't care but it won't work retroactively.

This is what most people would consider a "knee-jerk reaction" to a veritably problematic situation, the feeling a competitor that is little more than a ripoff may be beating you to the punch with a cheaper product and without all the R&D costs you had to incur. Yet they probably did the very worst thing they could have done: piss of their clientele. They shouldn't have been aiming for the everyday user- the TREZOR was, and still is way too expensive for that.

Sure, the code is still "open" for auditing, but if that was the idea from the beginning, why not make it so? All what SatoshiLabs has done with this is NOTHING to stop any dodgy Chinese IP-violating company from making a clone and gave the BWallet folks the opportunity to make their own offering (They just open-sourced everything, including the server and the plugin) more attractive so they aren't considered "just a ripoff" and to top it off, they pulled a dirty trick, which ultimately failed by the way, to make it seem they came to that decision 6 months ago.

tl;dr Slush, you dun goofed. You're still a REALLY respected man in the Bitcoin community and the face of SatoshiLabs, but a rash decision like this did no one favors.

That's what I've been thinking about too. I'm not sure how MyTrezor is going to evolve in the coming weeks with these changes. I was actually just trying to setup an instance of it on my local network with no luck. I'll try again later to see if I can get it working, but I sure want to have a backup in case MyTrezor goes down.

By the way, awesome username! 

One reason I held off buying a Trezor was the 100% closed transaction server used for myTrezor.com, there's just no way I'd be happy with that. If this new licence prevents the developers of p2p clients from integrating the code needed to drive the Trezor device, well, it just makes this even more tragic.


It does look like an emotional reaction from the Trezor team. They would have been better off trying to use their brains, instead of relying on intimidation.

Guys from Trezor are such idiots, right now other wallets won't touch this shit anymore with this license, integrating Trezor for Armory, Multibit, Electrum, etc...
Now I'm stuck with some useless Trezors

Wasted 240$ for some useless plastics which I can't use anymore because I can't trust it anymore being a project developed by such "kids".
Only a kid will get angry like this after his toys are borrowed by some other kid.

"look, you can take a look at my toys but don't touch them"

THAT'S WHAT OPEN SOURCE MEANS MORONS, so that anybody can take it, work with it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source#Microsoft_Reference_Source_License_.28Ms-RSL.29


Hmmm, not cool, that's not exactly open-source 

I don't know much about it, but a license that doesn't allow commercial usage only would make more sense to me.

I think this is an outrage. If I understand this correctly, now people aren't even allowed to modify the software for altcoin use....

Should have thought about that a bit earlier. Changing the license to 6 months back is not a good move.

They falsified their git repo to imply the change was made 6 months ago, then backtracked on that to say they made the change when it was actually made. That's lying, regretting the implausibility of the lie, then telling the truth without acknowledging the lie.

I think they first released 1.3 firmware under gpl v3 and then changed the license. thus not lying technically about 1.3 being open source when that happened. the license change was ca 24 hours ago, quoting slush from few days ago seems like a construction. 

I'm not happy with the restrictions for future releases but as long as it is open source I'm fine with that.

We all know its not fair what those jerks in china are doing. We understand how you feel. You did so much work to produce this product, work that has to be built into the price of the product its self, and by using your hard work they can just charge cost for the hardware and make a profit while undercutting you. But threatening to use the state to attack people for using your code? That's not acceptable behavior in a civilized society.

What exactly are you trying to say? Did I not quote slush?

I'm very disappointed with this.
I hope that some other legit wallet like Armory or Electrum takes the GPL source and continues the open source development for Trezor in their own way with 100% compatibility with Armory/Electrum/Etc.

You ruined it!