Topic: Hey bitcoiners if you are interested in the rebrand from Cobo to Keystone... (Read 349 times)

Unfortunately no You can compile your own firmware for both Trezor and Coldcard.
https://wiki.trezor.io/Developers_guide:Custom_firmware
https://github.com/Coldcard/firmware/blob/master/docs/dev-access.md

Anyway, this will be a big step for Keystone and thanks for your support!

I'm looking forward to the Cypherpunk version! It would be the first and only hardware wallet with self-compiled firmware as far as I know.

Thanks for asking! Great question!

We are in a very early phase of development not. The most ideal estimation is mid 2022. But it may go to late 2022 or 2023. There will be some other big changes.

The Cypherpunk version won't have any workable firmware when shipped out. With that being said, you can compile either multi-coin firmware or BTC-only firmware and burn into the device at your will.

Lixin, write when is it worth expecting the appearance of the Cyberpunk version of the wallet? Will it be multicurrency or bitcoin only version?

Mentioning open source, here are the details for Keystone -
https://blog.keyst.one/on-open-source-and-transparency-ba37fa1c1e8c

Don't be so nervous. By a compromised seed, I meant, for example, the operation of a random number generator built into the wallet, which can give out a far from random seed, but issue it according to an algorithm known by the manufacturer. In theory, the seed can be transferred byte-by-byte via QR codes. I'm not saying that Cobo or Keystone will do this on purpose. But people from criminal structures show interest in such companies and often try to introduce their own people there. Not one hardware wallet company is immune from this problem, just like any other financial company.

Listen dude... I don't know if you don't understand English language or what, but I said I won't blame anyone, and I don't know what you mean ''compromised seed''.
Cobo and Keystone are never connected with computer or internet in any way so there is more chance of someone finding your paper with seed words than extracting them from your device.
Simple procedure, import seed to Keystone, than reset old Cobo device, remove battery and use hammer to destroy your old device if you are not refunding it.
If you refunding old Cobo device, than send coins to other non-custodial wallet, reset device, never use that seed again, and send them your Cobo wallet for refund (if they ask for it).
If you need to blame someone than blame yourself for making poor decisions and mistakes.

I do not mean that you will lose your seed. I am saying that your seed could theoretically be compromised on either the Cobo wallet or the Keystone wallet. Who in this case, in your opinion, will be to blame?

No.
I am not a child, so I won't blame anyone if I am hypothetically so stupid to lose MY coins or MY seed phrase, but I guess other people may have a habit of blaming others for everything that happens to them.

Let's say you decide to transfer your seed from Cobo wallet to Keystone wallet. let's hypothetically assume that after a while you have lost funds from your Keystone wallet. Who will you blame Cobo or Keystone? Are you 100% sure that Keystone is to blame? To avoid such incomprehensible situations, it is better to transfer your funds from Cobo to Keystone.

They are not completely different, not long ago they worked together, and both devices are almost identical with few small changes.
There is no company here that is generating seed, only user can generate, import or transfer seed, and nobody can access it even if they want to do it because Keystone/Cobo is airgapped device.

Ellipal is not most secure device, it's really just a closed source mobile phone with android os, there is no multisig support and no basic coin control feature.
I would never use this device as my hardware wallet, especially with price they charge now $139.

You start to manipulate. I didn't say Cobo or Keystone had bad intentions.
I wrote that Cobo and Keystone are completely different companies. And each of them must be responsible for its own generated seed. The fact that Lixin previously worked at Cobo does not mean that he can be responsible for the processes that are currently happening at Cobo. Likewise, Cobo should not be held responsible for Keystone processes.
Asking Lixin a question about transferring a seed from one wallet manufacturer to another manufacturer's wallet is forgivable for a beginner, but for a person who is well versed in cryptography, it can be understood as a provocation, hoping for his carelessness.
In addition, you registered your account 9 days after Lixin appeared here and immediately started with a negative, so it is highly likely that you are an employee from a competing company.
I am not against your constructive criticism of Keystone. But do not create deliberate provocations, and allow Keystone to develop normally.
Personally, I think that such wallets as Keystone and Ellipal are the most secure, although they are not very popular yet and must be present on the market.

Hey Dave thanks for your question!

Those are new Keystone devices. And that Amazon store was fully managed by ourselves rather than any 3rd party.
The old Amazon store can't fully remove the Cobo Vault brand so we have to do it in that way. Sorry for the confusion.
And we are opening a new Amazon store which is fully branded with Keystone. But it takes a bit time (Amazon requires complicated KYC process).

Our next gen will move to deterministic to align with other products.

Yeah I can totally understand your concern. The cypherpunk version is only for the most hardcore bitcoiners (they have to compile firmware all by themselves and burn to the device). Not designed for average users.
And we will still maintain the current product line of Keystone.

@BitcoinLixin are the units being sold on Amazon from the new split off company or are they old Cobo units?
Kind of tough to tell from the wording on the page, they are shown as keystone but they are still listed under the cobo vault store.

-Dave

Hey,

I'm not sure to whom you are critical of.

No bad blood, but to further contribute to this thread:

Yes, I'm aware and sorry for the troublesome time Lixin/team must have experienced behind the scenes.

Are you saying Keystone or Cobo has/had bad intentions?

Either way, you shouldn't have used Cobo Vault in the first place and on the other hand need to decide if you want to use Keystone (which I was trying to do so by asking my questions). Topic on signing firmware has a bad taste but unfortunately this practice seems to be common sense in public companies. In addition, for what I've understood of Lixin's explanations (twitter/blog) Cobo as a company and Lixin/team operated like they where two seperate parties. Cobo funded. Lixin/team developed.

Topic on moving seeds: What I was initially confused about is why Lixin suggest moving funds. I wasn't reading his initial post correctly. Namely, that some specific coins are not supported on their Keystone backend / app. In case of multi-coin usage (and only having coins on supported derivations), I think putting an existing (and well-tested) mnemonic into a new Keystone device is far superior than creating a new/seperate one and actually moving funds. Creating a new mnemonic means you have to again generate it in an untrusted manner, test integrity and functionality. Also, you have to handle it logistically (e.g. new seed plate). And move the funds. I don't understand your claim... What does the seed have to do with the actual usage of the device (which for altcoins, probably should be a well-maintained one like Lixins product)?

In the bitcoin-only case, looking at the source code, it seems that Keystone and Cobo are quite the same for now. In practice, if you're fine using the old features (QR, SD slot, etc) one could still use Cobo Vault for a long time. Even though that doens't mean buying a Keystone now is unreasonable: you support the development/fund of their new endeavour.

If I had bad intentions asking these questions it simply wouldn't matter (beauty of bitcoin and opensource). Satoshi only appeared for a short time as well. You don't have to trust him. Moreover, it's not like I'm asking for Lixin's seed...

Thank you, I learned a lot from this. I tried it again with my Cobo Vault testing device.
This time, I did sign a exact same PSBT multiple times with Cobo Vault and can confirm, sig differs!
Although, this does not verify the source of provided RNG is sufficient (in general) it mitigates a lot of trust in a potential advisory.
Non-deterministic / deterministic, maybe in further iterations the User can decide by himself?

Thanks.

As stated in previous comment I misread your initial post, sorry...  

Parallel product cleared this up (I was referencing to a potential abandoning of the current version when a secondary product line is introduced).

Thanks for the Discussion and thanks for answering my questions.

PS, Lixin, lots of respect for handling this situation like you do! If you find the time would be happy to hear more of you on podcasts. Keep going <3

I think you are well aware that Cobo and Keystone are now completely different companies. And giving advice to transfer the seed from a wallet of another manufacturer, which in theory could be deliberately compromised, on Keystone wallet surprises me. For the same reason, Cobo refused Keystone to sign the migration firmware for wallets with its logo, so as not to spoil its reputation in case of problems.
It surprises me even more that such a question is asked by a rather seriously knowledgeable user who, in the above question, describes the theoretical possibility of compromising private keys using signed transactions.
In addition to everything, you are new to this forum and for what purpose did you appear here and where you were before I do not understand?
All this leads to bad thoughts.
I also want to warn Lixin to be careful, not everyone is friendly on this forum, and every random word of yours can be used against you.

Thanks for those questions!

You have found the right sources.
Actually there are 2 ways of doing Bitcoin's cryptographic signature.
The first one is called the non-deterministic way. In this way, each signing will pick a random number k. Then run the signing algorithm with this k. As each time the k is different, so the results are different but they are all valid results. Actually this is the original way of doing ECDSA signing.
The second one is called the deterministic way. In this way, k is "derived" from the message you are signing. With that being said, if you sign the same piece of message each time, k is the same (deterministic). So you will get the same result. This is a newer implementation of ECDSA and it's defined by RFC6879.
We are using the original implementation.

I think here Aaron means that you can verify each different results by writing some code or using some 3rd party tool like https://8gwifi.org/ecsignverify.jsp

This is saying that Keystone supports less coins compared to Cobo Vault. IOST, EOS, ETC, CFX, DCR, FIRO(XZC), Omni-USDT are removed.
Your friend should move these coins to other other wallets before he imports Cobo's seed into Keystone.

Thanks! (Please forgive me if I don't fully understand your question.)
 Cypherpunk version would be a parallel product to the normal version we are selling now. I can't see any conflict between releasing Cypherpunk version and maintaining the current version.

Hey Lixin!

Thank you for the Q&A.

I'd like to raise 3 questions, one of them critical, holding me back buying the device

A while back, I came across this article by Stepan of Specter
https://medium.com/cryptoadvance/hardware-wallets-can-be-hacked-but-this-is-fine-a6156bbd199

I did some testing with a couple of (hardware)wallets, initiating them with same the private key material. I created an unsigned PSBT, took the exact same PBST to each of the different wallets signing the tx. The resulting signatures were the same, expect the signature produced by Cobo Vault. Even though, the signature was different it was still a valid signature (From what I understand this can be the case in EC).

After some research, I came accross a couple of posts, e.g. of Andrew Chow and Pieter Wuille,
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/83785

And this post in Cobo Vaults github,
https://github.com/CoboVault/cobo-vault-se-firmware/issues/33

I don't understand the reply by aaronisme "you can verify it by signing the same data multiple times and verify the signature."
https://github.com/CoboVault/cobo-vault-se-firmware/issues/33#issuecomment-719134100

1. Verify against what? How would the verification process look like in practice? Please elaborate.

2. Friend of mine uses Cobo Vault together with the Shitcoin App. If I advise him buying buying a Keystone, why move the Coins? Can't he just put the Cobo-Seed into a Keystone-Device and use that with the Keystone App?

3. Liking the idea for a cyperpunk device, how do you plan to maintain Support for the Keystone Device one would buy today?

Appreciate your answers and wish you best of luck in this new Chapter!

Thanks! Great feature requests!

We don't see this a burden for an average user. But it's extremely important to people who are very keen to security.

We feel that flipping coins for 128/256 times is not very user-friendly so we implemented dice roll to do so. You can roll several dice simultaneously so it's has better UX.
And our dice roll result aligns with Ian Coleman's tool so it's easier to verify it without coding capabilities. Details - https://blog.keyst.one/how-to-verify-the-recovery-phrase-created-by-dice-rolling-af01c16b765e

We also implemented auto calculation for the 24th checksum word so a user can randomly pick their 23 words to bypass the random number (entropy) generation by the SE. Details - https://support.keyst.one/advanced-features/recovery-phrase/construct-own-recovery-phrase

We will look into this. BTW we will also do BIP 85.