Topic: RingWallet - Wearable Hardware Wallet - page 2. (Read 1228 times)

My apologies, I misunderstood. I'm happy that was helpful. After our discussion I also asked for some more feedback and opinions from advisors and team members and we're currently debating internally whether to just publish everything as open-source or source available. We honestly haven't taken a final decision yet but we should make one soon and I will update here.

New ledger stax devices got sold over a year ago and they just started shipping recently, this is not uncommon thing for a new products.
I always put wallets on the list when they claim to be open source, but this needs to be confirmed later.

I am not really upset about you for checking the list I posted, I even thanked you for that in another topic, and I made some updates and corrections with the list.

I will update when the US entity is out. We will also doxx the team in the coming weeks.

With that said, we are not selling anything so not sure how we can scam someone. People can only sign up with an email.

Regardless, I won't go over this again as it's already been discussed. I'll just get back when I have more updates.

I would imagine when I called the Romania police to tell them of your scam, they wouldn't be able to help me with just your "literal name" on Linkedin.

I therefore suggest everyone wait until they see proof this is not vapourware before they take anything this account says seriously.  

I removed three things from the PMs, one: the link to my linkedin, two: the list of what I did before which is also on my linkedin and three: the name of a project I built. I won't talk about the others but I'm pretty sure the linkedin link which has my name counts as personal info. What do you mean I claim I was doxxed in my home country?

Regarding the Kickstarter, 10% is the kickstarter fee and the other 5% you are probably refering to is the fee that marketing agencies that do kickstarter campaign take, which I also mentioned in my dms.

My question was what specifically where you refering to when you said


I was asking what exactly you were referring to when you said I wrote different things in our dms than I did here, so I assumed you were talking about my comments regarding VC funding since that was what we were talking about and what you quoted. So I quoted those messages and asked. You said the answer is no so then what is the inconsistency?


1. I directly quoted from our dms the parts that were related to what we were discussing, which was VC funds.
2. I didn't imply you were doxxing me, you said you want to post our dms and I said sure as long as you remove the doxxing info. And then I just posted our entire dm convo without the doxxing info.

Edit: I see you just added this as a trust to my profile: "This user has not provided any PII. By claiming I know who he is, he hopes to gain trust. We do not know who this user is. His claims of being doxxed in his home country are unproven."

1. I don't hope to gain trust by claiming you know who I am.
2. What do you mean claim of being doxxed in my home country?
3. The Linkedin literally has my full name.

Thank you for the permission; I promise to only use what's necessary to correct any "inconsistencies".    Such as paying "15%" because you can't do a Kickstarter.  

Even with implied permission to post PMs, I always remove personal info.   I won't make you a PII victim.     Nothing in your PMs contained any PII, so your noble proclamation to protect is a waste of breath.

In fact, you have no personal info anywhere.   The [edited doxing info] you wrote covers ambiguous information anyway.  Nothing you sent me identified you as a person, it was just lists of things you did in the past.  As a seasoned scam buster, how can I trust any of those past events identified you as a person?    Plus, you claim you were doxxed in your home country, but provide no information more on that.


Which question?  I see two "?" in your post.  Literally, both responses would be "no" - my concern is in the inconsistencies of your post history as a whole.  I cannot say one specific part had the only lie.

The hypocrisy of you asking why I ignored your question in the same post you ignored my question.  Instead of answering my question, you implied I was doxxing you?  

Here, I'll make it easier for you by posting all dms without doxxing info.

First dm:



Second dm:



Third dm:



Extra dms I sent, no answer




So there you go, I literally copy-pasted our entire PMs without actual doxxing links and/or details/names of projects that can dox.

It's the same as I said above. We're raising a round from VCs. I considered running a kickstarter but decided it's a bad idea for the above reasons.

Lastly, just so we're clear
1. I will dox myself along with the entire team but much rather prefer that I do it myself, at most it will be a maximum of 2 weeks before I do. I know in the dms it says it should've been done by now. It's not because we had more things to do besides this. We will doxx soon either way.
2. The US entity should be out by the end of the coming week and I will share it.

With that said, I genuinely don't understand why you're so against us. Even when I try to answer to your questions you either ignore me or find some new way to attack me.

I doxxed myself to you and while I will dox publicly as well, would prefer to do that personally.

If you want to post any of the dms without the doxxing info feel free to. But I already quoted the dms that related to the above discussion myself.

Also why do you ignore my question?

edit: or the doxxing of other people I mentioned. I want to be able to do that myself when we announce various things, not through you posting our dms.

Do I have permission to post our PMs?

Is this what you're referring to?


That still stands. We're not opening any sort of contribution/sale/etc. We're raising VC funds, as I stated in our dms as well.

If you're refering to the fact that I said we're in production phase, it's the same as in our dms, when I said that we're already waiting on a batch that we can send over to people for review.

Or maybe you're refering to this?


But it's the same thing as above. We're raising from VCs as I said in our dms as well. We're not launching a sale.

If you're referring to the comment about giving some legitimacy to the project; both are true. I'm sure having some VCs who back us and did due diligence will probably put some worries at rest.

Do I have your permission to post our PMs?   You wrote different things there than you are here.

Hey Vod, the US company should be out next week and I will share it.

As for the other things you mentioned; it's not in design phase, we're currently in production phase. As for funding; yes we are looking to raise VC funds but I don't see anything wrong with that. First of all, with the exception of Trezor most hardware wallet go and raise funding rounds because to be able to run a hardware business you need to be able to manufacture large amounts or price becomes very prohibitive on a per item cost; and making even 20,000 devices is more than $1M so that's the main reason. Beyond that we want to be able to get some proper licenses since the end goal is to allow people to use the ring at a POS which is dependent on that. Second of all, we're not raising money from random people on the internet but from professional investment funds that do due diligence so again I don't really see anything wrong with that.

Anyway, I will share the US company details when it's done.

1. I did some more reading on licenses after our discussion.
2. You gave them as examples, and you seemed to care a lot about open-source so I was curious to see what these guys were doing. When I noticed some of them aren't really that, I figured you'd like to know, genuinely have no idea why you're trying to misconstrue what I said.
3. Common clause license isn't different to what I was saying at all, I even used the specific term in one of my posts. You can go and read my previous posts; I specifically people would be able to see/copy the code for whatever non-commercial purpose they want, the only restriction was not using it commercially for a period of 2 years. Whereas common clause restricts you from using it commercially in a perpetual manner. So not sure why you're against it when I said it but for it when you say it. (By definiton, common clause license is a source-available license and not an open-source license).

Hito has been in presale for 2 years so being open-source is just a claim at this point. But regardless, I'm not even sure why you got so upset about me checking the list. I was genuinely trying to help and you somehow took it as a personal attack.

Agreed!  I am not against open source.   The OP could release a proprietary product with private code, and offer some really cool features to go with it.   But that requires trust that needs to be built up over time.


I called this product vapourware for this exact reason.   Product is still in design phase and they/you are looking for development funding.  


P.S!!

I have a bunch of souvenir-devices collecting dust in old boxes...
Open source alternative ring hardware wallet is around the corner so stay tuned

I can argue that Passport made a much better hardware wallet and their code was totally rewritten in different language.
But I have nothing against people who still prefer coldcard that comes as a package deal with ego-maniac NKV, and list obsolete junk unusable unsafe coldcard devices is getting bigger every day... just sayin.

I would really buy one as a souvenir

It's a business and their ACE is the code. ColdCard put too much work to create the code that they have right now (they also copied others to be completely honest) and then The Passport wallet was creating using the ColdCard's open-source code. It's a commercial business, so it doesn't surprise me why they are scared.

The society is not ready to flex with Bitcoin wallets. It depends on the country and neighborhood but overall, you are right, it's dangerous to wear this ring and walk outside if many people discover the existence of this ring, as it should be since the company wants to sell as many as possible.

That's how people get fooled.

One reason to avoid open source is to make claims the open code cannot complete.  Closed source is "magic" and you can promise anything.

You obviously don't know anything about licenses like you confirmed publicly, so I would be genuinely concerned purchasing any product from you.
And now all of the sudden you know how to correctly read licenses for list of wallets I posted before...

Note that most of the Common Clause licenses you mentioned don't allow selling of code, but it can still be forked and reproduced, much different than what you plan to do.
Hito is only pre-sale so it can't have code released, and Bitbox changed their github page, I can't follow all the changes and some links might be outdated, but I will update soon.
I don't know why you hate and fear forked code...it's open source, learn more about it.

cypherockx1:
https://walletscrutiny.com/hardware/cypherockx1/

bitbox02 is clearly open source:
https://walletscrutiny.com/hardware/bitBox2/
https://github.com/BitBoxSwiss

i knew that this was a great idea, where one could take their hard wallet anywhere they wanted, and it was stylish and quite compact. but what concerns me here is what happens when criminals start to get to know this product and start linking people with black rings to using this product? that would definitely be quite dangerous. and more, even though this product has a waterproof feature, it still makes me feel anxious. i know that this ringwallet is a good breakthrough innovation in terms of hard wallets, but it just doesn't suit users like me.

Thanks for the answer. I'll answer in parts.

Re Uniswap; I used it as an example so you could understand what I meant. I also don't know who they're supported by and whatnot to be honest.
Re Open source:
1. I genuinely didn't know the difference between open-source and source-available at the time. That's my mistake and I apologise for it.
2. As mentioned in my previous message, you, as well as some other people we are talking to privately have expressed opinions in regards to why go open source vs source-available so we haven't made a final decision as of right now. At the very minimum, the code will be made source-available and we are still debating whether it will be under a trully open source license or a commons clause one. I will update here after we make a final decision.

Re Satoshi & Bitcoin; I don't have such delusions of grandeur. I think ringwallet is a cool nifty product but it will never be even 0.1% of bitcoin, so not sure it's a fair comparison. With that said, I do understand where you're coming from, and just to be clear, the difference between the license we initially planed to use and a commons license is that ours was/is time-limited; meaning anyone would've been able to use the code for whatever commercial purposes they wanted to after a period of 2 years, as opposed to commons clause, which as far as I understand, is permanent.

So back to your theoretical example, if Satoshi published bitcoin under a 2-year limited license, people would've just forked bitcoin 2 years later, so not really the end of the world to be honest. Because again, we didn't want to gatekeep the code forever but rather just have a 2-year headstart. Anyway. I am genuinely considering just publishing it completely as open-source when the time of launch comes, but the launch is still a few months away and until then we are still wrapping up what is left and will be making a final decision in regards to this as well.

Lastly, regarding your list; that's an awesome list and thanks for sharing. I actually went through the list myself, and since you seem to care a lot about open-source, which I appreciate, I just want to make some mentions to you regarding the list. Just to be clear, not trying to be a dickhead, but I genuinely went through the repos, so I figured some of the things I will list below should be of interest to you.

https://github.com/proto-at-block/bitkey -> commons clause license. It's combined with MIT, but it's the same as it being source-available because it also has commons clause license.
https://github.com/Cypherock -> commons clause license. Again, combined with MIT but same as above, it's source-avaialble in reality not open-source.
https://github.com/hito-xyz -> they say open source but as you can see the github is completely empty bar from some documentation; the software you're supposed to download is completely closed-source, not even source-available. Also, apparently they've been in pre-sale mode for about 2 years now and as far as I've been able to see, not much if anything has been shipped out. There's even a thread (and apparently a telegram group) of people complaining about it. Here's the thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hito-new-hardware-wallet-open-source-5487572
https://github.com/bithd -> literal complete copy-paste fork of trezor, not sure if it's worth including in such a list, because a lot of the people on that list have actually done real heavy work and should be praised for it. This is just ctrl+c / ctrl+v.
https://github.com/digitalbitbox -> completely empty github so not even source-available
https://github.com/bitlox -> most of it is forked from bitpay, hive and multibit. The repos which are not forked have no discernible license of any kind and have not been updated in 7-8 years at a minimum, so again, not sure it qualifies as open-source or that it deserves to be on that list.

I think that's a really cool list and just wanted to let you know about these because I figured you just didn't have the time to actually check and that's why you haven't removed them yet. Some of those guys on that list have really done an incredible amount of work and I figured they shouldn't be bundled with things like the above. Anyway, thanks for the feedback and the information, I'll give this some proper thought and we will in either case announce our decision here once it's made.