In the world of Bitcoin wallets there is a plethora of security threats that you need to stackrank.
What anti-exfil would do is to break 90% of the current wallets’ UX to solve a fundamentally low-risk threat, relative to other threats. When better solutions exist.
A big no-no.
Introducing a new round trip / new interaction every single time a user signs a Bitcoin transaction is a terrible idea from both UX and engineering perspectives.
It violates Single Responsibility Principle. Coordinator should stay purely coordinating. No more, no less.
hugohanoi /
npub1qp…6yn58
2024-08-07 03:00:36
Author Public Key
npub1qp302p7ry80x8xpcafm4d4szpxvzy8r70lyveg39gk0xgycwu35s06yn58Published at
2024-08-07 03:00:36Event JSON
{
"id": "b1dad9098dc9db096d4f3dd755eed519b49abf001abb3f52f23463ecb82f8d0d",
"pubkey": "0062f507c321de639838ea7756d6020998221c7e7fc8cca225459e64130ee469",
"created_at": 1722992436,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "In the world of Bitcoin wallets there is a plethora of security threats that you need to stackrank.\n\nWhat anti-exfil would do is to break 90% of the current wallets’ UX to solve a fundamentally low-risk threat, relative to other threats. When better solutions exist.\n\nA big no-no.\n\nIntroducing a new round trip / new interaction every single time a user signs a Bitcoin transaction is a terrible idea from both UX and engineering perspectives.\n\nIt violates Single Responsibility Principle. Coordinator should stay purely coordinating. No more, no less.",
"sig": "e2f1742ea886a843440ec2586a57e1a646d476903d86b938e6fdf3ed9d672d4269708d4b91a9fd3af8d7a1629da1409e08d0c4193f4bc40739ae00632f08369a"
}