I have not publicly spoken much or asked questions about this for a few reasons. Firstly because I consider you to be a personal friend and I feel that you try to do the right thing in each of the projects and organizations that you are involved with. You helped our project out in numerous ways, especially early on when our core concept was brand new and still being proven out.
Neither opensats nor dorsey owes our project anything. I have been very clear about this, and I moreover feel that opensats is a net good for both the bitcoin and the nostr communities. But I have also avoided asking questions about the status of grants, much less about potential conflicts of interest, because I did not want to spoil Keith's chances at a grant, or negatively impact anyone else who might apply in the future for a SeedSigner-related grant. I think this speaks to the same self-censorship dynamics that jb55 has referenced.
You insinuate in the above that there has been at least one vote on a SeedSigner related grant. This would be news to me because I had the understanding that applications related to SeedSigner were being considered but were deactivated when it became known that Keith had received funding from the HRF.
While a required threshold of "yes" votes for a successful grant is of course entirely reasonable, "no" votes (especially emphatic ones from persons of influence) can cut quite effectively in the opposite direction. nvk's repeated, persistent, very public criticisms of our project communicate something like personally motivated animus rather than any sort of good-faith conscientious objection. Even were he to openly abstain from a formal vote on SeedSigner related grants (which would be in line with opensats' publicly established policies) other board members are likely to be influenced by his numerous public statements. It's honestly troubling that someone running a company that embraces "source available" as an attempt to rebrand what open source means, and who has referred to good/faith FOSS proponents as "commies", should be in a position to decide who does, or who does not, receive open source grant funding.
Some very legitimate questions are being raised about the parties providing funding, their motivations, the entities receiving funding (and those who aren't), the specific tech they're working on, and those who are directly (and indirectly) involved in the funding decision making process. I don't think these questions are being asked because of prototypical bitcoiner contrarian suspicion, but rather are the result of an evolving pattern of observable events; some might call what they are seeing as potential "aligned malincentives". The opensats funding dynamics and scale may also be arriving at a point where larger structural dynamics are coming into play and a "just trust me" approach to public relations and organizational ethics becomes increasingly less and less viable.
So where from here? I don't have a good answer and none of these are my decisions to make. Hopefully opensats just has a short-term public perception challenge that can be resolved with better communication and more transparency. But bitcoiners are a skeptical bunch and these questions aren't going away if they aren't addressed.
Lastly -- I believe that you personally have a good heart and I'm rooting for your success.
(NB - I am speaking here under the exorbitant privilege of operating this account as SeedSigner "the man"; my comments may not reflect the opinions of all, or even of any, of our contributors.)
Wait NVK thinks FOSS is communism or that people who do it are communist?
Guess I'm a communist then.
Benjamin Franklin was a communist?
JUST CHECKED OUR RECORDS. LOOKS LIKE KEITH RECEIVED FULL TIME FUNDING FROM HRF AND WE TOLD HIM TO RE-APPLY TWO TO THREE MONTHS BEFORE IT ENDS.
That's great news for Keith! How has the process been for him so far? #HRF #FundingSuccess
This is what I see as an outsider as well.
Anyone who follows Bitcoin knows and understands NVK's disdain for the Seedsigner project. I enjoy his podcast but he enjoys bringing up Raspberry Pis each episode.
Are there tradeoffs between using different devices.
Absolutely.
But it doesn't mean each one doesn't have their own value propositions and use cases.
I like both projects.
I would prefer if both lived up to the Bitcoin ideal of being FOSS.
As a contributor to Seedsigner - albeit a small one-, I support this statement 100%.
nostr:note10hstatl0855a5y2g8l09g35ce7afjs2t9rgdv0h0thp38cvwcfvq00zjj2
Who or what is nvk?
Curious.
#asknostr
nostr:nevent1qqsqg3dpmm6yeywxpyfkzpgxz5fttntnf5cyw82jdkjnt38zxjf0qzcpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzquhn3f5a8l6733sx0f7cwnn3l986amgcd4ene2gfug6udfqnfp7rqvzqqqqqqyptjc7a
Creator of coinkite (coldcard)
NVK is the head of CoinKite, which makes the ColdCard line of signing devices, and has been a staunch opponent of trusting generalized hardware for Bitcoin signing devices.
As a contributor to Seedsigner - albeit a small one-, I support this statement 100%. 🎯
Is @SeedSigner a raspberry based wallet ?
If you're asking whether a SeedSigner is built using a Raspberry Pi single board computer, the answer is yes.
But is it holding private keys?
It is specifically engineered to not store private key data after power is disconnected from the device.
I will also say personally I think NVK is an asshole that shouldn't have any say in who recieves grants. Listen to citadel dispatch miami 2022 where he talked shit about QR signing devices as "insecure and unwanted by the market" just in the way he talks about Seedsigner now. (after he has now made his own QR capable device)
He is scared of competition to the point of changing his license to fight it and making smear campaigns of other FOSS products. He doesn't have his finger anywhere near the pulse of where bitcoin is or is going. Coinkite still doesn't take lightning because he's a stubborn dickhead. He is not a FOSS contributor, but a FOSS abuser.
Oddbean new post about login | logout