idk the whole point of hardware wallets is that they are supposed to be a simpler stack. But if you're using a closed source hardware wallet...

An old laptop with the wifi card taken out is more transparent and auditable. It just runs the ordinary open source code

But I just keep all my funds in a hot wallet, no multisig. And if I get hacked I lose it all. I think the answer is just have good security and dont get hacked. The risk of losing cryptocurrency will encourage security advances across the whole ecosystem. I think I will set up multisig eventually

▲

lxgr 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How do you update that open source code without network connectivity? How do you securely input long transaction data to sign?

> I think the answer is just have good security and dont get hacked.

So you proposed a way to be more secure, only to discard it yourself in favor of “just having good security”?

	▲	trollbridge 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You don’t. It’s not networked. It doesn’t need updates. In fact, updates are only a risk. You physically remove anything that can allow updates to happen + anything that allows wireless networking.
	▲	NoidFonsense an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		USB flash or QR code to transfer data I agree my approach is not great, I dont own a lot

▲

razodactyl 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I wonder if wallet is not a good or bad analogy considering it would make sense to have many wallets to distribute potential damage instead of being taken out in a single hit... UX issue?