Topic: Speculation: New Trezor Product Coming on 14 June (Read 926 times)

Experience using smartphones with Gorilla Glass suggests that this is not a 100% way to protect against scratches and other damage. Even if the device is not used daily and as often as a smartphone, the device's screen may still be vulnerable to scratches. Screen protectors can help here.

I understand, but aesthetics are not as important as the functionality of this device. In the case of hardware wallets, you will be least concerned about the appearance if the device suddenly stops working.

The protective cover doesn't offer extra protection for the screen. It's only for the back cover and the sides. The screen itself protects against scratches and other damages thanks to Gorilla Glass protection.

Paying extra to protect your seed makes more sense if you ask me. A steel plate or steel washers are both good solutions if you don't want plain old paper backups.

To me it would make perfect sense to buy a protecting case like ons of those ones for the Trezor Safe 5, compared to the rest of the products of Satoshilabs, it is an expensive product and it is wise to protect it from scratches and falls, specially if holds an important amount of money. In that idea in mind, it would also make sense to get some crypto steel from the Trezor store together in a bundle with the Trezor Safe 5, so both the expensive device and the important seed phrase can be both protected from damage.

As a side note, I am the kind of person who does not like when a device like a phone or a watch starts to get scratches. 

"Scammer"? What did I do to scam?

Not to expensive but I think this is a waste of money for this device, especially since this is made from cheap TPU.
Trezor Safe 5 already has GorillaGlass protection for screen and nobody really cares about scratches on case.
If someone really wants additional protection than it's not hat hard to 3d print your own case protection for all Trezor devices.

Trezor has just released protective covers that they call bumpers for Trezor Safe 5. They are supposed to protect your hardware wallets from damage and scratches. It's not something I would personally buy, but if you have a tendency to drop stuff, maybe you'll find them useful. You can use your Safe 5 and its touchscreen with the bumpers on as they protect the back and the sides.

They are made of TPU, which is a kind of plastic with rubber-like elastic properties. A bumper costs €10, and it's available in 4 different colors: transparent, orange, green, and violet. You can purchase them from the official shop.

It's interesting that Trezor developers invented both Bip39 and Slip39 backup method and they are claiming that Slip39 is improved and safer way to store seed words.
That is why all new Trezor devices are coming out from factory with Slip39 backup as standard, and other wallets are slowly accepting this.

PS
I am not wasting my time answering anything to scammers like kruw.

Any set of shards below the minimum required number of shards for recovery don't reveal anything about the underlying secret.

This wouldn't be the case if you split recovery words of a particular BIP39 wallet. Every split part would reveal a certain number of words. The whole set of words of course allow to recover the full wallet, unless an optional mnemonic passphrase has been used or some weird lengthy non-standard derivation path.

Obviously, if you have enough SLIP39 shards, you can recover the wallet, unless... see above.

What makes SLIP39 more secure than BIP39?

There is no difference in discreetness between Trezor One and newly released Trezor models, and there is a good chance Model One stops production in near future.
For Trezor Safe 3, and other new models, secure element is a big security improvement for and it is even more secure with new Slip39 recovery method.

No idea what Montero is, but there are many reasons I mentioned above for Trezor 3 Safe.

That's because you prioritize other things rather than convenience, portability, and ease of use. If you want more privacy and control, you'll have to invest more time in your setup to build something that suits your particular needs. But for those who prefer a quicker way to engage with crypto and don't mind giving up some of their privacy, hardware wallets are a preferable choice. 

There's an exception, the Safe 3 came out after the Model T but is much cheaper. The touchscreen design of the Safe 5 appears to be the successor to the Model T while the 2 button design of the Safe 3 appears to be the successor to the Model One.

I do not even know how I missed this Thread.  169 is kind of much for this in my opinion.  Does anybody feel like the new features are worth the expensiveness?

I think they increased the Price from model to model, have they not?  It almost feels like Apple reading this.  The device looks nice and all, but hell.  For 169 I think I can build myself a pretty quick Computer that can hold Full Nodes for a few Cryptocurrencies too.  I really believe any Hardware Wallet over 100 is an over reach unless you carry it around often and need it for portability.

It won't necessarily make the older hardware wallets and software insecure and vulnerable. That would only happen if Trezor or some white/blackhat hacker finds serious vulnerabilities with those models. If that doesn't happen, your security won't decrease. But you won't be able to take advantage of new features and options and the developers would stop bettering the code for the older devices to make it function more efficiently. With all that said, it's always better to have a device that the company still supports with new updates.

Thanks for your replies, I guess paying for some extra features in the Trezor model 3 could be worth it. I had not thought about the possibility of Satoshilabs sunsetting the firmware update for the original Trezor One model and only focussing in the newest versions, to be honest. If it happens, it could be obviously be translated onto a lack of security for those who are left behind... 

I makes me wonder who much time Trezor Model one and Trezo model T have left in the market before they stop getting updates... Satoshilabs seems to be still quite proud of their original Hardware wallet, so they are less likely to sunsetting it soon, but there will be a time which is no longer sustainable for them to continue to produce them and sell them, unless they algo increase its price slightly.

The latter part provides better protection if you know how to use it properly ^{[refer to the very end of "this page"]}, but I wouldn't mind having another layer of protection ^[SE].

Even if none of the differences that Pmalek mentioned earlier existed, I would've still paid the $20 difference between the devices in question to get almost another decade of firmware updates.

The secure element is important but not crucial to your security. The SE chip protects against physical manipulation of the device. However, if someone has control of your Trezor, you have already done something really wrong to allow that control, and you should think about moving your coins elsewhere asap, regardless how robust the hardware wallet's security is.

There are a few differences between your Model One and the Trezor Safe 3:
- As I mentioned already, Safe 3 features a secure element chip, Model One doesn't.
- You enter passphrases on the Safe 3, but for Model One, you must enter them in Trezor Suite on your computer. That's less secure.
- You can take advantage of Trezor's new 20-word seed backup scheme and multi-share backups. This isn't available on Model One.

Perhaps it is just me, but I still find myself to be fond of the classical model Trezor One, it just feels more discreet and less luxurious than it's predecessors, I don't know.
Besides, in my opinion, I am not sure the new features are worth the premium one would end up paying for the new model...
Do you believe having a secure element within the device is a must or it would be solved by having a strong enough passphrase and adding ones recovery seed well enough?

Some months ago I was considering to get the Trezor Safe 3, because it kind of an evolution of the original Trezor one, but in retrospective if I am only into BTC and do not plan to get money into Montero or Cardano, there is no reason to spend an extra.

Thoughts?

The SD card encryption has its use. I wouldn't mind taking advantage of it if I had it on my Trezor One. If you knew the PIN code of my Trezor, you would be able to unlock it and steal all my crypto if you had physical access to the device. However, If it was protected with an SD card, you wouldn't be able to unlock it even if you knew the PIN without the second factor - the SD card. It provides users with that one extra line of defense like you say.

The conclusion is obvious: why buy the same thing at double the price?

And I, as a potential buyer, would like manufacturers to listen to my needs and try to meet demand. Otherwise, what is the point of business if not to satisfy customers?

Not at all, no, completely serious. I believe that manufacturers could produce the same Trezor Safe 5 in two modifications:
1) with a basic minimal configuration, which will not have Bluetooth, an SD card slot and other unnecessary little things for those who do not need extra functionality. And accordingly, a little cheaper in cost. I personally would take exactly this one.
2) advanced maximum configuration for those who need all this functionality.

I can imagine that both product lines would find their customers.

The stripped-down and full versions could be produced on the same device base (in order to save production), with the only difference being that bluetooth, an SD card slot, and the like would be physically removed.

Many people will not want to buy a device just because of the built-in Bluetooth (insert your own reason), which is why the company loses customers and profits. I'm not suggesting that manufacturers fulfill every whim of their clients, but creating hardware wallets with major / minor models doesn't seem to me something extra-impossible and extra-complicated.