Topic: Square is considering making a hardware wallet for Bitcoin (Read 4002 times)

There was some glitch or big discount on Bitkey website few days ago with their wallet price dropping to $25, that was a big discount compared to standard $150 price.
Several users reported their purchases to social media, but this offer didn't last long, and there was nothing posted from official Bitkey team.
I wouldn't waste $150 on Bitkey but I would surely take that offer for $25 for testing purposes.

You could just protect the device by adding the fingerprint from your big toe instead of any of the fingers on your hand. That way, if someone tries to force you to unlock the device, you can always claim it's not working and test all your fingers in front of them. From what I know, the toe prints are also unique for each individual person.

Probably , but on a serious note, adding someone else's fingerprint to our devices essentially increases the attack surface and that's the kind of feature I don't want a tech-illiterate user to have.

Same here ^{[perhaps most of them don't even consider it as a hardware wallet]}... I only found a single review from someone who doesn't have a rich history of doing such reviews and as expected, he also "didn't recommend it".

Is this in case someone cuts one of your fingers during wrench attack?  
Seriously now, this is nothing now and same thing already exist on smartphones for years.
It's interesting that I didn't hear any feedback or reviews about Bitkey from people who are generally testing all hardware wallets.
I certainly won't recommend Bitkey even if they add support for 33 fingerprints.

Small update:

A couple of weeks back, they added the ability to "save up to three fingerprints" and to rub salt in the wound, they explicitly mentioned allowing another person to unlock the device in question ^{[as an added layer of protection, but I highly doubt that'd be the case]} and considering that who their target audience is, I'm pretty sure most of them will probably use all three ^{[I do know the fingerprint route is optional but IIRC, it's needed for authorizing transactions above the spending limits]}!

It was a joke about waiting for Bitkey.

Has anyone already analyzed this source code on github? Nobody found anything interesting or alarming?


Of course, not for this reason. Let me guess, you were also wondering what crap this company would release and deprive its naive clients of sole ownership of their crypto assets? Initially, it was clear (presumably) that the square in its structure would use a concept that would directly confront the ideas of decentralization and the principles of cryptocurrencies (financial freedom and independence).

I'd like to think a little (hypothetically) about the nature of centralized hardware wallets. Let's assume that at one moment all crypto assets of the square's clients will be taken away by this company (isn't this the most frightening thing?). What can these clients do? Draw up a class action lawsuit against them (it’s clear which side the court will probably take). So it turns out that due to reputational and financial risks, it is not in the interests of such companies to openly rob their clients. Therefore, as I assume (but don't try to justify them), fears towards such manufacturers are slightly unfounded (but I will not recommend their devices). The greater concern is that the manufacturing company will not be able to build a reliable security system and that client assets will be stolen by malicious hackers. But the same thing can happen to any crypto investor with personal storage, right? A bonus can be considered that in case of losses incurred by a company like square, they will have to compensate (if they can) for the losses of clients. Unprepared crypto investors, who I assume are the majority, will benefit from placing the responsibility for custody and risk on someone else (the company), as when storing money in traditional banks. It is from this point of view that bitkey will be interesting.

To some extent, yes, but not for that reason

If you were referring to the content of their homepage, then perhaps it has something to do with the first bullet point in their "Notes" section:
^{- IIRC, the server code had something to do with one of the keys, so I guess that counts as not being fully open-source!}

• Quote from: https://github.com/proto-at-block/bitkey?tab=readme-ov-file#notes
  This document (including Software and schematics) is current as of 2024-02-22. Our goal is to make sure the code we publish is up to date with what is available in the App Store. We may publish other items on a less real time basis (e.g. server code and schematics) and so what is published may not always map to what is in production or design.

I don't know who waited for a long time for Bitkey, but it was not me for sure.
They finally started sending this devices, but I am not really interested in paying €145 plus shipping fees for this.
It's interesting that I couldn't find any information about source code, but it can be found on their github page:
https://github.com/proto-at-block/bitkey

The long-awaited hardware wallet Bitkey from Block / Square has been released. Admit it, you were all waiting for this (to buy), right? As @dkbit98 already wrote:


This device can't be purchased for cryptocurrencies (credit and debit cards only), which looks just as stupid as if a wallet for paper money could only be bought for metal coins. Maybe it’s impossible to store crypto on this hardware wallet? Ah, it seems bitcoin can be stored.

More of a side comment then anything, but CashApp (Square) is now aggressively pushing in the US their tax prep and filing service.
They can even track your crypto buy & sell for gain / loss purposes and so on.

Makes you wonder how many people will feed them more info about their crypto holdings because of this.

-Dave

The problem is that their system design is flawed. It is not possible to fix a flawed design with even the best, most open, most reviewed or tested software codebase.
Think about a car without wheels; no matter how well engineered it is, with an excellent engine and micron-perfect panel gaps, it will never move an inch.

I wouldn't be surprised if that happens in few years, and not just for hardware wallets but for many other things, but looking in Sats price could actually go down
That doesn't mean that I am endorsing Bitkey device in any way, this is just another way for Jack Dorsey to earn more money.

You're right, but it doesn't seem that they even tried to mitigate that problem by choosing alternative suppliers, and by continuing on that route, $300 hardware wallets would become the norm in a year or two.

In the latter part of "this blog post", there's a PDF link with some information about an issue surrounding certain parts of the code:

• Quote from: https://bitkey.build/content/files/2023/11/Bitkey-Recovery-Features.pdf
  Bitkey server code that implements the co-signing policy is not yet verifiable
  ○ We will open-source the code prior to general availability - but this code runs in an Amazon Web Services environment managed by Block whose properties customers cannot directly verify.
  While we may be able to provide verifiability through AWS’ Nitro Enclave Attestation, we have not yet evaluated this approach nor implemented it

Yeah, but most hardware wallets have a screen. This isn't even a hardware wallet, just a blind signing device.

Like a lot of projects in this space, silly little things like open source, self custody, not trusting third parties, privacy, etc., are all irrelevant when it comes to making as much profit as possible.

You forgot about inflation part, so price is not such a big problem for me here.
$150 today is not the same like $150 few years ago, and most hardware wallets are starting around $100 price target and up.

I though Jack Dorsey was a ''bitcoiner''... but than I remember never to trust what anyone say in public, especially if he was involved in big social media business.

I see a bunch of people on twitter ordering this stuff, so I won't be surprised if it gets sold-out quickly  

There is no a single word about code on their website, and that usually means it's not open source.
Don't trust, verify.

Even worse, Jack's original 2021 announcement said that their work would be open source (as much as possible), as did one of their early blog posts.

I asked one of their leads on Twitter who replied "Yes we still plan to publish our code before we ship" (https://x.com/max_guise/status/1732808300427690113?s=20)

As we know, "publish" code is different from open source. Unfortunately Max did not reply to my followup questions asking about commitment to using FOSS licenses. Hopefully they will follow through on Jack's original commitment.

$150 for a closed source box with no screen which means you have to sign your transactions blindly and which gives Block the ability to completely surveil all your transactions. Seems like all the concerns we raised multiple times in this thread have been completely ignored and Block have powered ahead with the worst possible combination of features.

Hard pass.

Even if none of its cons existed, I would've still said it's way too overpriced.

This part surprises me the most... A few months back, they partnered with Coinbase and integrated their services into their app, but for some reason, they're not using Coinbase Commerce on their website ^{[quite weird]}!

Bitkey wallet has now officially opened for pre-order with the price of $150 plus shipping and taxes.
That includes hardware device, mobile app, and bitcoin recovery tools if you lose phone, hardware, or both of them.
Note that shipping starts from late February to early March 2024, so don't expect fast delivery.

I think they also created new website with new video commercial:
https://bitkey.world/

Would I spend over $150 for this device?
- No, and Bitcoin is not accepted as payment option  


https://twitter.com/jack/status/1732799578062172295

I can attest that we are drawing inspiration and discussing how to build a similar product at a similar cost without the multitude of drawbacks I noted in my blog post.