I imagine this is in response to the Bitkey v2 announcement.
When we wrote the first line of code for Nunchuk 6 years ago, we deliberated a lot on whether to hide the concept of “keys” from users.
At the time, due to the popularity of singlesig wallets, a lot of Bitcoin wallets intentionally chose to abstract away “keys.” A wallet became synonymous with a key.
Not only is this straight out wrong, it leads users to a confused place, unable to fully understand the power of public-key cryptography, one of the cornerstones of Bitcoin.
Without understanding keys and public-key cryptography, users will never truly grok the power of Bitcoin or become truly self-sovereign.
Users are not dumb, and we chose to treat users with respect by not hiding away keys. In 20 years, we believe everyone will need to understand public and private keys to function in an increasingly digital world. Learning how public-key cryptography works will be similar to learning ABC. Whether you are self-custodying bitcoin or giving your AI agent an identity, you either understand it and stay in control of your future, or you don’t.
We decided to make “keys” a first-class UI/UX citizen in Nunchuk. Keys, then wallets. Wallets are made up of keys. Two distinct abstractions.
We vow to never abstract away this critical concept. You will always be able to import and export keys in Nunchuk based on open standards.
No vendor lock-in. Ever.
The "seedless is safer" path is a little more palatable to me than it was a year ago, but I'd still rather be able to access my key material.
Hiding keys to simplify Bitcoin is like hiding the steering wheel to simplify driving.
It feels easier until you need to turn.
Great stuff... now back to the real world... compare Nunchuk usage and Bitkey sales to find out which one users actually prefer
Ill comparison because those numbers are directly proportional to money and effort going into marketing not because everyone is dying for seedless bitcoin custody. I won't go as far as saying this is an attack (yet) but surely you see the danger in thousands being unable to simply move their seed into some other open source option if need be? This to me seems like yet another way to cajole the masses into a pin that locks from the outside. It's dangerous.
The alternative to seedless or Bitkey is not Nunchuk... is simply normies not using bitcoin at all. It's lack of adoption.
Partial seamless self-custody is superior to complex nerds-only perfect self-custody.
I don't know if it's a bad comparison: I'm not sure that very many users are ever going to want to pursue self-custody. Whether it's nunchuk, Bitcoin keeper, Liana...or even Bitkey. It seems to me that the masses are much more interested in STRC's 11.5% juice and the "I don't have the balls to take responsibility for my own decisions" kind of folks who are more comfortable with having a brokerage or exchange hold their sats.
The tools for self-custody of bitcoin have gotten so much better and yet I suspect that fewer coins are being held in self-custody (don't have any actual evidence for this, just gut feeling).
Maybe Bitkey will put a dent in this by making it easier. They seem to be doing a lot of thoughtful design work to make self-custody feel safer to people -- but I think they didn't need to make it impossible for users to access their keys.
As in no derivation? Why is that safer?
That was a reference to Bitkey's design choice to not allow users to access their key/seed material.
I don't think it is safer.
That post says 3 words "not your keys" in 300 words. But it doesn't even say how it solves it.
Yes it made me so grumpy I got into it with Steve Lee
#1009501
Also I made a song about it:
I didn't like the idea that "no vendor lock in" was redefined as "you can send your coins to a new address" rather than "you can import your seed into another wallet software."
You: "You have to send a tx from their app to recover"
Steve: "That is not lock-in"
Steve is right though: this is not lock-in...
... it's slavery disguised as
bulshytt.(I really enjoyed re-reading Anathem, lol)
https://twiiit.com/lianabitcoin/status/1928181377771655228
Okay?
Bitkey has a clean solution to the dilemma.
Certainly with tradeoffs, but only one I could gift to a normie and have a guarantee that they won't fail in custoding bitcoin.
I think that that's my bottom line point: tradeoffs. If you have secrets, they have to be kept safe. Whether or not you do it yourself or you outsource it, directly or indirectly, merely shifts the burden, but the burden is still there. You may just not be exposed to it in the same way and you'll have different friction.
You'll even probably still have a seed and key derivation as continuous secure random without wrapping is a security risk too that a normie won't be able to defend against.
I guess what they really mean is: we don't have a BIP-39 implementation.
I get the goal but the market is the ultimate decider.
Keys might be for the hardcore whole seedless will be for the masses.
https://twiiit.com/nunchuk_io/status/2048995093961711964