Long Wiki Edit Thread

[Patrick]

Possible to use this one?

Trezor Hardware Wallet

[Patrick]

Upload access has been added.
https://www.whonix.org/wiki/Special:UserRights/MarkTheCoder

[markthecoder]

Thanks

[Patrick]

@proposed wiki edit

[https://trezor.io/ Trezor] (by SatoshiLabs) was the world’s first hardware wallet, launched in 2014 with the Model One.

Sounds like an advertisement. Making factual claims is a problem because then someone can fact check it and criticize the wiki for being inaccurate.

@bitcointalk

I spent some time porting the firmware to the BitSafe. I think the BitSafe will be the “home” of the hardware-bitcoin-wallet firmware …

Source: Bitcointalk – a minimal Bitcoin wallet for embedded devices – 7 Oct 2012

If Trezor was the first hardware wallet or not may be more suitable for Wikpiedia as an encyclopedia of history. As far as Kicksecure / Whonix is concerned, it’s best to not weight into these kinds of questions, since that’s relevancy is not established.

Maybe relevant to say “exists since 2014” and easier to back up with evidence than any comparative statement.

@proposed wiki edit

[https://trezor.io/ Trezor] (by SatoshiLabs) was the world’s first hardware wallet, launched in 2014 with the Model One.

More claims that might be controversial.

@AI

The hardware and firmware repos are public and openly licensed, but the Suite repo is not licensed as open-source in the linked repository. The hardware repo says “Open Source Hardware,” the firmware repo shows a “GPL-3.0 license,” and the Suite repo uses the “TREZOR REFERENCE SOURCE LICENSE (T-RSL),” defines use as “reference use,” and “specifically excludes the right to distribute the software outside of your company.” (GitHub)

The secure-element part is also not fully accurate as a blanket statement anymore. Trezor says Safe 5 and Safe 3 use the “OPTIGA Trust M (V3),” while Safe 7 includes TROPIC01, which it calls “an open and auditable secure element.” (trezor.io)

[markthecoder]

I’ve edited the controversial sections and added more information about the secure elements. I also noticed that I don’t have image‑upload permission on the Kicksecure site—could you grant me that access?

[Patrick]

@markthecoder

I also noticed that I don’t have image‑upload permission on the Kicksecure site—could you grant me that access?

Done.

https://www.kicksecure.com/wiki/Special:UserRights/MarkTheCoder

[Patrick]

Binary Build Locations

[HulaHoop]

I don’t know the best place for this, but I think it’s Worth documenting out of interest for quantum cryptanalysis. Most enthisiasts know about Shor and Grover. Brassard–Høyer–Tapp concerns hashes

latticerisks-20211031.pdf

p94

Why was “SHA-256/ SHA3-256” assigned only “80 bits quantum security”? Surely this alludes to the Brassard–Høyer–Tapp algorithm [25], which finds a collision using only about 2256/3 ≈ 285.33 evaluations of SHA3-256 on quantum superpositions of inputs. However, the Brassard–Høyer–Tapp algorithm also has tremendous overhead to look up each superposition of hash outputs in a precomputed table of size about 2256/3. If the cost metric for computation includes low-cost “random access gates”, as explicitly allowed in Ambainis’s famous distinctness algorithm [5] and many other quantum algorithms, then these lookups are not a bottleneck. However, the literature also has various cost metrics that assign higher costs to memory, and if these costs are high enough then the Brassard–Høyer–Tapp algorithm becomes useless. See generally my paper [14].

[Patrick]

→ Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQCrypto)