Author: Jonas Schnelli 2016-08-18 09:35:05
Published on: 2016-08-18T09:35:05+00:00
The discussion revolves around the use of "natural tools" instead of standards to solve problems in the context of hardware wallets and plugins. The argument is made that building a standard on top of the URI protocol is a limitation that does not give any advantage. However, it is acknowledged that standards can help an ecosystem grow and sustain a good user experience. Currently, hardware wallet vendors have used "natural tools", resulting in native plugins in Electrum, Copay, etc., which overlap significantly and create bad design for security critical applications. As a hardware wallet user, one would prefer a trusted application layer provided through their hardware wallet vendor, while as a hardware wallet vendor, one would like to provide and update a software layer to customers with code signatures and security updates. While there are issues with the bitcoin:// URI standard, most bitcoin wallets support it well. The proposed URI scheme would be different, using the URI scheme as a transport layer, which is the proposed long-term inter-app communication layer by Apple and Google. When it comes to mobile platforms, an Android library could be used by any app and implement proper transports for various supported vendors, like USB for Trezor and NFC for others. However, the proposal of having one library that supports multiple vendors raises questions about adding new transport layers and addressing critical security issues. The suggestion is made to remove the "hardware communication layer" from wallets and move it towards the hardware vendor app. It is also questioned whether iOS should be left unsupported with hardware wallets.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T19:42:00.750526+00:00