I thought I saw your talk. I completely missed this. Would you please link me the talk and any slides/code you have released.
Is backward compatibility a requirement? would a new “secure” device that supports z2z and the other coins be a better route? It is pretty easy to remove the constraints in the environment when you are not limited to the two chips the nano uses.
More bad news.
Can anyone from ECC and/or ZCash Foundation reach out to Ledger / Ledger CTO and suggest some support?
Having z-transactions on Ledger (a de-facto standard) is absolutely critical for adoption.
I have heard that “some” wallet companies want significant amounts of money to add Z-address support. The backend infrastructure needed for Z-addresses is much different than what they are currently running so requires more effort/manpower to maintain.
But ZEC is money, and the Founder’s reward purpose is having enough funds for development…
Personally I believe that a complete ecosystem is worth spending a part of that money to get all the features available on a hw wallet (possibly in a reasonably short time).
ECC, don’t be tightfisted, please!
A little bit off-topic and not directly related but as it’s about HW wallets i think it could fit anyway.
Wouldn’t something like this be not a good solution for Zcash HW wallets too?
…In response to this problem, an Israeli startup called GK8 promises to offer a way for crypto exchanges, hedge funds, and other institutions a record of digital currency transactions without an Internet connection. … K8 was launched in 2018 by two members of a special defense unit that guards Israel’s digital assets. The startup also counts Eran Trofer, a noted cryptography expert and the founder of the digital currency ZCash, as a board member. …Lamesh says G8K can record transactions to a blockchain—public online ledgers used to memorialize transactions—while offline by using a “unidirectional connection.” That means data can be uploaded without exposing the crypto owner to the broader Internet…
Indeed! If someone submits a grant proposal to do this integration (perhaps starting with @str4d’s work and offering a plausible path to resolving the remaining issues), I expect it will see wide support.
Can I get in on this? does it have to have an on “an off device” (phone/pc) app? is it a bare minimum device hw wallet or a proper hardware wallet?
hopefully I can help more. Id even be up for helping write the requirements. (or that might be the cough syrup talking)
Havent looked at the link sorry, but the foundation has already got most of the code it needs. It now is just a matter of device design. (I think, I haven’t had a chance to formally review the FPGA aws instance code you released, but it looks to have all the the bits you need.) - there just talked myself out of a grant. lol.
@mistfpga, I think the focus in this discussion is on adding shielded address support to existing wallets (Ledger, Trezor, KeepKey, etc.) rather than from-scratch FPGA design. Targeting retail/small users who can’t afford expensive/clunky custom hardware.
So not quite what I think you have in mind… but maybe the two can be bridged? For example, are there some cheap-and-sufficiently-secure commodity FPGA platforms (not necessarily designed to be wallets, but easily purposed) that could answer the needs of retail/small users?
And of course, more expensive but powerful wallet/HSM solutions are also important; they just won’t answer this need.
We can make a comparable device using exactly the same chips to protect the priv keys. we cant do that for someone elses device though. (it will need a small fpga to make certain bits “quicker/possible”)
if you want a nano style z2z pocket wallet that isn’t a phone. sure. It isn’t actually that hard. I can see why it would be hard to retrofit but not to make with sapling transactions in mind (this device would only support sapling and beyond, it would not be backward compatible) and it would be a bit bigger than a usb stick. but not that much (unless it has a full on screen, which I think it should for memos)
Or maybe I can RE the nano, just looked a bit more about it, looks pretty easy to get the firmware off. It is about time I looked at the nano a forum member was kind enough to send me. I will look into the code tomorrow. But I don’t think it will be possible due to this:
So, I can probably botch something together, but I am pretty sure it would be illegal for me to distribute it. Although I am allowed to make the modifications perfectly legally in my country of residence.
I know that your job is difficult… and you and your team are doing a great job!!
I’m pretty sure that your work will increase ZEC adoption by at least an order of magnitude.
Storing ZEC on a hardware wallet is the key to be safe. Having ZECs stored through shielded transactions is fundamental to spread ZEC adoption… otherwise it lacks a great part of privacy.
Keep us updated on the development, please!
Cant wait to see Z addresses on HW wallets. Wonder how far out we are talking here… a month or two? more? From what I understand bluetooth wont be possible with the Nano X/ not sure why…
Take into account that Nano X uses BLE so desktop integration is not a typical use case from Ledger’s point of view. We are not considering bluetooth part of the scope. We could do that as a follow up, we don’t expect bluetooth in Nano X to be too hard… it just needs a fair amount of work and testing to do proper mobile integration.
About timeline, our grant has already a delivery schedule. It is possible that we can be a bit faster, though.