With a Trezor you can use a simple passphrase you can remember and if a thief discovers your seed he would not be able to steal any bitcoin stored in your passphrase protected wallet (if you have a few bitcoin not protected by the passphrase they would be at risk.) Trezor devs really produced a well designed product with just about every option you could ask for.
I don't see the difference. You have to protect your seed in the same way you protect your passphrase. 
Topic: OVERVIEW: BITCOIN HARDWARE WALLETS █████████████████ Secure your Coins - page 6. (Read 122464 times)
February 14, 2016, 05:16:06 PM
February 14, 2016, 04:33:32 PM
KeepKey IMO made a mistake when they decided not to incorporate passphrase protected wallets like Trezor did. KeepKey works fine, looks beautiful but you really need to keep your seed protected very very well.
With a Trezor you can use a simple passphrase you can remember and if a thief discovers your seed he would not be able to steal any bitcoin stored in your passphrase protected wallet (if you have a few bitcoin not protected by the passphrase they would be at risk.) Trezor devs really produced a well designed product with just about every option you could ask for.
February 14, 2016, 03:49:18 PM
February 13, 2016, 02:39:35 PM
Bitlox first impressions and teardown
http://www.stellaw.info/blog/2016/2/12/bitlox-first-impressions-and-teardown
http://www.stellaw.info/blog/2016/2/12/bitlox-first-impressions-and-teardown
Stellaw always posts good teardown reviews that are very helpful. BitLox seems to be having some quality control issues. I received my review unit last week and it was defective out of the box. It happens. They are sending me a new unit and I should have a full review online next week. I can tell you that the keyboard on my first review unit did not have the bulge in the middle Stellaw showed in their photos and the keyboard was fine, actually had better feel than the one on my Case wallet.
February 13, 2016, 08:05:09 AM
Bitlox first impressions and teardown
http://www.stellaw.info/blog/2016/2/12/bitlox-first-impressions-and-teardown
http://www.stellaw.info/blog/2016/2/12/bitlox-first-impressions-and-teardown
Very interesting reading. I also see you are working on a Trezor clone, and progress in releasing details? I could not find it on your blog.
February 13, 2016, 05:32:47 AM
Bitlox first impressions and teardown
http://www.stellaw.info/blog/2016/2/12/bitlox-first-impressions-and-teardown
http://www.stellaw.info/blog/2016/2/12/bitlox-first-impressions-and-teardown
February 13, 2016, 05:32:18 AM
Looks nice, but I think I prefer online wallet. Just as simple
good luck buddy
Yeah... Let us know when you get "404 - Page Not Found" or an email that says "We've been hacked. Sorry about that. Your coins are gone and we're shutting down."
that will never happen
February 12, 2016, 11:53:27 PM
Looks nice, but I think I prefer online wallet. Just as simple
good luck buddy
Yeah... Let us know when you get "404 - Page Not Found" or an email that says "We've been hacked. Sorry about that. Your coins are gone and we're shutting down."
February 12, 2016, 12:20:27 PM
Looks nice, but I think I prefer online wallet. Just as simple
Yes, just as simple. But totally insecure if you compare it to a proper hardware wallet. If you have $50 in bitcoin, online wallet = no problem.
February 12, 2016, 03:24:41 AM
Looks nice, but I think I prefer online wallet. Just as simple
good luck buddy
February 01, 2016, 12:33:51 PM
Looks nice, but I think I prefer online wallet. Just as simple
February 01, 2016, 08:47:14 AM
KeepKey CEO Darin Stanchfield on Bitcoin Security
https://btcmanager.com/news/tech/feature-interview-keepkey-ceo-darin-stanchfield-on-bitcoin-security/
https://btcmanager.com/news/tech/feature-interview-keepkey-ceo-darin-stanchfield-on-bitcoin-security/
Just read the whole Interview and i think that i knew most of the things before, I'm collecting to buy one as i think it is the most secured hardware wallet at the moment, but the cons is the high price.
The Trezor works with my phone and Trezor lets you create passphrase protected hidden accounts. KeepKey does not.
From https://www.keepkey.com/keepkey/faq/security/
"If someone finds my KeepKey recovery sentence backup, can they steal my bitcoins?
If you use KeepKey’s advanced passphrase feature, even if a thief learns your recovery sentence, they will not be able to access your bitcoins without knowing the passphrase. You can also have multiple passphrases, making it even more difficult for thieves with your recovery sentence to gain access to your bitcoins."
I do not feel you are gaining any security by using KeepKey over Trezor. If you just like the looks of the KeepKey you are getting a basic hardware wallet with PIN protection only that works very well with Multibit HD. Nothing wrong with that at all, but you lose some of the advanced functionality only Trezor and BitLox have at this time. Just take the time to make sure the hardware wallet you buy meets your needs.
You're only talking about current lack of software support, right? Hardware/firmware wise, I thought the Keepkey retained every bit of the Trezor functionality, with added performance of the larger screen and faster operation, plus it has the additional feature of scrambled-word recovery that Trezor cannot do. I do not own a keepkey (yet) but I'm sure Aussiehash can confirm this.
I have a KeepKey of course, and have been in contact with the company. KeepKey does not support passphrase protected accounts using the Chrome extension. They mentioned to me they need to change the website to reflect that. They may add passphrase support in a future release.
Sorry to report that KeepKey can not create passphrase protected accounts in Electrum-2.5.4. I was able to get KeepKey working with Electrum with some help from support and they agreed with me there is no way to add passphrase protection in Electrum. Took a couple of days of sending emails back and forth to confirm that. It is also a pain to have to run Electrum from a command prompt. KeepKey definitely does not have the advanced features of Trezor.
February 01, 2016, 07:22:32 AM
Would receiving mining payments sent to the trezor or ledger wallet be good or bad?
Receiving payments, especially regular payments, directly to a hardware wallet is better than to an online wallet IMO.
Depending on what you have in mind (privacy?), you could have the BTC sent to a different wallet each time (burdensome)...
OR
You could just arrange to quickly send your payments (after receipt) off to a mixing service and then on to your hardware wallet.
(I do not get mining payments, but I do get Sig Campaign payments, and the latter above is what I do)
What I wanna do is move away from coinbase
I'm looking at multibit hd using either trezor or ledger for my mining payments to be directly deposited into..
Just making sure it would work like I want it too and I'm not sure which one is best to use
You may want to consider Copay. That's what I use and I like it.. I use it in conjunction with my Ledger.
February 01, 2016, 01:13:33 AM
Firmware wise, KK and Trezor are comparable.
Wallet wise, there are some differences, reflecting Trezor's longer time on the market.
The KeepKey Chrome extension wallet has fewer features then myTrezor's web wallet.
2 major omissions (from the KK Chrome ext wallet) are passphrase support and 24 word initialization (you can however restore a 24 word seed).
KeepKey Chrome also doesn't have the dropbox account names/transaction metadata that myTrezor does, but on the flip side, keepkey doesn't rely on the BoP backend and I am still unable to find OSX uninstall instructions for the myTrezor daemon which continues to fill my console logs with non stop errors.
Electrum 2.x offers 24 word seeds and passphrase support for both Trezor and KeepKey.
KeepKey is not currently supported by Android Mycelium, but Darrin has suggested elsewhere that a mobile solution is about 2 months from release.
Wallet wise, there are some differences, reflecting Trezor's longer time on the market.
The KeepKey Chrome extension wallet has fewer features then myTrezor's web wallet.
2 major omissions (from the KK Chrome ext wallet) are passphrase support and 24 word initialization (you can however restore a 24 word seed).
KeepKey Chrome also doesn't have the dropbox account names/transaction metadata that myTrezor does, but on the flip side, keepkey doesn't rely on the BoP backend and I am still unable to find OSX uninstall instructions for the myTrezor daemon which continues to fill my console logs with non stop errors.
Electrum 2.x offers 24 word seeds and passphrase support for both Trezor and KeepKey.
KeepKey is not currently supported by Android Mycelium, but Darrin has suggested elsewhere that a mobile solution is about 2 months from release.
January 31, 2016, 10:41:46 PM
KeepKey CEO Darin Stanchfield on Bitcoin Security
https://btcmanager.com/news/tech/feature-interview-keepkey-ceo-darin-stanchfield-on-bitcoin-security/
https://btcmanager.com/news/tech/feature-interview-keepkey-ceo-darin-stanchfield-on-bitcoin-security/
Just read the whole Interview and i think that i knew most of the things before, I'm collecting to buy one as i think it is the most secured hardware wallet at the moment, but the cons is the high price.
The Trezor works with my phone and Trezor lets you create passphrase protected hidden accounts. KeepKey does not.
From https://www.keepkey.com/keepkey/faq/security/
"If someone finds my KeepKey recovery sentence backup, can they steal my bitcoins?
If you use KeepKey’s advanced passphrase feature, even if a thief learns your recovery sentence, they will not be able to access your bitcoins without knowing the passphrase. You can also have multiple passphrases, making it even more difficult for thieves with your recovery sentence to gain access to your bitcoins."
I do not feel you are gaining any security by using KeepKey over Trezor. If you just like the looks of the KeepKey you are getting a basic hardware wallet with PIN protection only that works very well with Multibit HD. Nothing wrong with that at all, but you lose some of the advanced functionality only Trezor and BitLox have at this time. Just take the time to make sure the hardware wallet you buy meets your needs.
You're only talking about current lack of software support, right? Hardware/firmware wise, I thought the Keepkey retained every bit of the Trezor functionality, with added performance of the larger screen and faster operation, plus it has the additional feature of scrambled-word recovery that Trezor cannot do. I do not own a keepkey (yet) but I'm sure Aussiehash can confirm this.
January 31, 2016, 10:09:34 PM
...
In more detail and more accurately, in my case BitcoinNewsMagazine and btchip, I receive regular payments to one wallet, my irregular payments (when I buy BTC) go to a different wallet each time I purchase (all of these wallets are online wallets for convenience).
Once the transactions are confirmed and once I "have enough" to mix, I then send BTC off to be mixed and then to either my Ledger Nano or my Trezor depending on my mood.
In more detail and more accurately, in my case BitcoinNewsMagazine and btchip, I receive regular payments to one wallet, my irregular payments (when I buy BTC) go to a different wallet each time I purchase (all of these wallets are online wallets for convenience).
Once the transactions are confirmed and once I "have enough" to mix, I then send BTC off to be mixed and then to either my Ledger Nano or my Trezor depending on my mood.
January 31, 2016, 06:48:57 PM
There are actually two problems : having a lot of small inputs, and having an input produced by a giant transaction.
The first problem slows down the whole signature process (as the signature is fully re-hashed for all inputs), while the second one slows down the input recovery once (but that can be noticeable if many inputs have been produced by such transactions)
Now the good news is the new signature mechanism associated to SegWit helps with both issues - you only need to process the full transaction once, and don't need to process the parent transaction to recover the value associated to the input.
It's hard to say it'll be enough to make the mining use case bearable yet, but it'll definitely be much better.
The first problem slows down the whole signature process (as the signature is fully re-hashed for all inputs), while the second one slows down the input recovery once (but that can be noticeable if many inputs have been produced by such transactions)
Now the good news is the new signature mechanism associated to SegWit helps with both issues - you only need to process the full transaction once, and don't need to process the parent transaction to recover the value associated to the input.
It's hard to say it'll be enough to make the mining use case bearable yet, but it'll definitely be much better.
January 31, 2016, 03:37:31 PM
Would receiving mining payments sent to the trezor or ledger wallet be good or bad?
Receiving payments, especially regular payments, directly to a hardware wallet is better than to an online wallet IMO.
Depending on what you have in mind (privacy?), you could have the BTC sent to a different wallet each time (burdensome)...
OR
You could just arrange to quickly send your payments (after receipt) off to a mixing service and then on to your hardware wallet.
(I do not get mining payments, but I do get Sig Campaign payments, and the latter above is what I do)
Depends on how many payments per day your Trezor is receiving to a single account. If you are receiving many payments per day you could develop a problem with Trezor synching see this post at reddit. How to fix:
"The speed is limited by number of inputs you are spending. Trezor has to stream each input transaction into the device to check that the indicated amount of input is correct. This is security feature which prevents certain type of attacks, so it cannot be left out. In your case, you have hundreds of input. If you are receiving a lot of transactions on daily basis, it is good practice to send received bitcoin to another Trezor account when you collect around 50-100 transactions. This way you will defragment and collect the input and your coin will be ready to spend fast."
January 31, 2016, 01:58:22 PM
Would receiving mining payments sent to the trezor or ledger wallet be good or bad?
Receiving payments, especially regular payments, directly to a hardware wallet is better than to an online wallet IMO.
Depending on what you have in mind (privacy?), you could have the BTC sent to a different wallet each time (burdensome)...
OR
You could just arrange to quickly send your payments (after receipt) off to a mixing service and then on to your hardware wallet.
(I do not get mining payments, but I do get Sig Campaign payments, and the latter above is what I do)
What I wanna do is move away from coinbase
I'm looking at multibit hd using either trezor or ledger for my mining payments to be directly deposited into..
Just making sure it would work like I want it too and I'm not sure which one is best to use
January 31, 2016, 01:53:40 PM
Would receiving mining payments sent to the trezor or ledger wallet be good or bad?
Receiving payments, especially regular payments, directly to a hardware wallet is better than to an online wallet IMO.
Depending on what you have in mind (privacy?), you could have the BTC sent to a different wallet each time (burdensome)...
OR
You could just arrange to quickly send your payments (after receipt) off to a mixing service and then on to your hardware wallet.
(I do not get mining payments, but I do get Sig Campaign payments, and the latter above is what I do)
Jump to: