Sorry I have been gone.

Not naming the exchange is simply a PRIVACY THING on my end.  I am sure you understand that!

I have never needed to trade at $50K or above at any one time so far.  No issues ever with a wire transfer to my bank directly from the exchange.  Again, as mentioned above the entire process takes 2-3 hours until the funds are 100% liquid and good to go!  I don't think liquidity is a factor here.  Picture the process.  I move some hardware wallet BTC to my BTC receive address at the exchange.  In around 10-15 minutes I get a chunk of confirmations on the transfer so the exchange is satisfied its a done deal.  Then I willing pay the 1% (maybe 1.5%) conversion fee to turn the BTC held there into the currency of my country.  It is now cash sitting there in my exchange account.  Next I login to the exchange and wire transfer the money directly to my bank.  Its there FAST, but I usually have to wait a few hours (2-3) until they release the funds as liquid.  My longstanding relationship with bank likely makes it happen at above average speed.  Also that is why my bank waives any wire transfer charges.  I find it simple.  The price I get for my BTC sold depends on the market conditions.  We all know that we want to sell when the market is HIGH and that is my goal obviously!  My .02

I also started my first post above by saying  ---- Assuming I am playing nice


I described fully taxable transactions that went on my 1040.  If I need cash I don't mind paying a 1% fee to turn full price BTC into cash in my bank in 3 hours or less.  I find that reasonable for the convenience.  I hold BTC hardware wallets that are traceable to me by transaction history and I don't really mind using them as needed going along in life.  I don't leave BTC in my exchange (no keys not your coins).  All above board.  However; I also hold BTC hardware wallets that don't trace back to me and are sitting in the blockchain for years.  Those were trace "scrubbed" long ago and they could go in any direction in the future.

I am trying to visualize how this feature would help me.  Assuming I am going to play nice and submit to KYC and Taxes  ------ >

Currently I transfer some hardware wallet  BTC to an exchange as BTC in my account at the exchange if I want some cash.  Then I swap the BTC out for my local currency (1-1.5 % swap fee) still in my exchange account as currency.  That takes about 15 minutes or less.  Then I wire transfer the funds directly to my bank for free and the whole thing is done with fully liquid cash in my account in about 2-3 hours.  Simple, fast, safe for me.  I am not limited by the 50K threshold.  When BTC = 100K the 50K threshold though would be hit at only  .5 BTC so that could happen to folks.  Either way how would my trading .5 BTC using OTC be any better than my current method?  I don't care about saving a few cents either way on such a transaction.  However; I am kind of cheap so I do watch expenses if they are significant.

satscraper,

Thank you for the links.  Don't have time today, but maybe this weekend.  I really do want to jump in and get a handle on understanding this.  I think I better bring my thinking hat with me!!

I have a pile of them and its usually only a few days.  I would never order from anyone BUT the original mfg -- at least I wouldn't.

Satscraper,

This was a great and clear answer.  It is what Trezor users expect.  I/we have always suspected what you posted is spot on.  However; I would love to read a "paper/link" clearly showing why this is so.  I would love to dissect and see the transaction torn apart to better visualize how a swapped destination address (after a Trezor confirm) invalidates the entire transaction.  I am not losing sleep over this but I feel like with me being a Crypto person for over 10 years I should be able to nail this in my mind.  I cannot.  I believe it and I know Trezor (and others) were designed for this to be true.  I would love to spend the time to rip this apart and learn something beyond basic here.  Just saying!!

So then I am trying to ascertain the consensus of the group here.  Are we saying that if a user is looking directly at their Trezor and confirms the BTC address is perfectly correct on the display, that the transaction can ONLY go to that displayed address?  When I read about many "high end" hacks it causes me to wonder if somehow the software could pull a switch address a nano-second after I confirm on my Trezors.  I am just trying to think out of the box here.  I have been using Trezors since early on with the T1 and several T's as well.  I triple check the display and have never had any issues at all.

I know what I am describing here would be a BTC BIP protocol and not something Trezor could do on its own!

I have been reading about various BTC hacks that have happened.  Fortunately I am very careful and move slowly triple checking things before clicking Send and by confirming everything on my Trezor screens.  But I still have some concerns because Damn hackers are getting good and creative as can be.

I am not sure my idea can be implemented but math is math and I think it could be done. Bear with me while I describe my thoughts.  My BIP would be to create a needed BTC BIP protocol where a Trezor (or any other HD hardware wallet) that has the address displayed to which you intend to send your coins.  My proposed BIP would be that the transaction is mathematically constructed in a way that the math contained would only compute accurately IF the transaction was sent to the EXACT and only the EXACT address displayed on the Hardware Wallet.  Such a BIP would invalidate ANY software/suite infections (accidental or intentional).  In other words there would MATHEMATICALLY be no exceptions and any middle man bullshit would be summarily invalidated.  Clearly the current use of a private key to permit the control of YOUR send from address would not change.  I know the miners would have to accept the transaction but wouldn't it be possible to REQUIRE this level of computational math before making it to the blockchain?

This has been a recurring thought in my head so I thought I would come here and lay it out there.  Don't worry about offending me, because I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

These hacks are really hurting the public's perception of Crypto.  I just want all of us to be safe if we are doing things correctly.  You will never be able to protect "stupid" but that is not what I am talking about here.

Good read.  Things are looking up for Trezor.  Going to do additional research to confirm the totally open source aspect, but this is quite reassuring!!

Most anybody reading this thread will have no issues using SD Protect if they want to.  You simply use a Fat32 formatted micro SD and create a small file on the card using trezorctl and the commands Forsyth Jones placed above this post.  Couldn't be any easier.   Like all files it is easy to copy off and save the file from the SD card and encrypt it somewhere so you always have a backup.

I literally wipe (not simply delete) my file from the SD card and write it back the next time I use my Trezor.  Seconds to do in both directions, but I have shell scripts on Desktop that does it in a blink.  Again, its a very small file.

Of note is that the Trezor Safe 5 still has the card slot to use SD Protect even though it contains a SE.  Wouldn't hurt to continue using SD Protect along with the SE, but maybe that is overkill.  We all have to decide for ourselves.

Opinion below --- we are friends here or at least I feel that way:

App images are not only for novice users in my opinion.  I use them for security reasons, which I will explain briefly here.  Yes the app image contains dependencies that may be redundant since the OS already contains most of them anyway - who cares?   I use high end hardware and my wallets open so fast I can't time them even, LOL!  The current app image is around 62 meg on linux and I have TB's of space.  I enjoy the fact that the app image does NOT change during use - period.  The usage is stored in a way that is easy to find in .electrum and therefore can be removed/controlled 100% and flawlessly using the script(s) I linked above here.  For security I cherish the fact that a user can remove any trace of Electrum with a click (my scripts) knowing the OS is fine.  This is one advantage of the dependencies being used in and by the app image driving the scripts.

So in a case where the version of Electrum app image isn't changed but I have usage activity, I have the option to wipe and remove those trace items if desired.  I can save my wallets in encrypted space and simply wipe away the trail.  Many here won't want to do that, but we all have our reasons and should have the option --- my take.  My activity happens in VM's so I could globally accomplish this with snapshots or timeshift but it isn't needed my way!

Once the overall OS gets dirty or "trace cluttered" you would be down to timeshift.  Its all good either way.

Again, my opinion and reasoning.  Its OK to differ.

Forsyth Jones,


I am going to go out on a limb here and maybe push your thought process somewhat.  I am quite technically aware and I feel that the SD protect feature is every bit as good as secure element ----- EVEN  ---- if the SE performs as mfg's would like us to believe they do.  I do hope the SE's in Trezor are as good as they tell us they are.  I plan on getting a Safe 5 when the prices drop just a bit.  So in my conclusion a thief with an SD Protected Trezor T and a SAFE 5 in his booty haul would have basically no better chance to acquire the SEED from either hardware wallet   ----- IF the SE performs as indicated.  SD Protect is rock solid, proven, and basic mathematics.  I am honestly more confident that SD Protect will hold up than the SE because it is new and to me isn't acid tested over time yet.  .02

I operate in the linux world so all these programs and advanced features like SD Protect virtually run native in linux.  Simple stuff for such a big return in a small time investment.

And that my friend is the uncertainty that can keep a user up at night thinking about the possibilities.  I absolutely trust Trezor's team to tell it like it is if they become aware of something.  Trezor themselves may not even be aware of an eventual breakdown in the security of these new chips.  Just saying!



Not sure the metaphor you used is perfect but I get where you intended to go with it.  I have examined the encryption from the SD's that I have been using for a few years now.  The SEED and PIN are hopelessly encrypted without the SD present.  To me, and this is just my .02, that is much better than merely placing a high wall around my house (Trezor).

+1 for appimage!!  Flawless and is easy to control by adding or deleting when a new version comes out.  I places wipe scripts for Electrum and T Suite around in this forum if you want to use them.  Its easy to wipe away all the trail using those scripts and app image.   Just a thought.

I hope its OK for me to jump on this thread and share my inner most thoughts about these SE wallets.  If I am honest I don't know if I am willing to trust that these chips are perfectly SECURE as they contend.  Not going to pick on a specific mfg or chipset, just my general thinking.  I read about this stuff until my eyes bleed at times.

My contention here is that I effectively create my "own" SE Trezor by using SD Protect on my Trezor T's.  I know you will likely shrug this post off but to me its reassuring to know that my "T's" if I handed them all to you have 100% encrypted SEED and PIN masks!  There is no question at all that the SEED and PIN are unavailable to acquire.  Now to me that is SE in a way that lets me sleep well at night.  Sure I need to handle my microSD card but that is child's play for the autoscripts I use to wipe and write back the needed file when the time comes.  Seconds at most.



And like we all know further compounding wallet security with long and difficult passphrases in addition does mitigate the SE issue!

I ran a universal power supply for a few years back in the day.  That would be a nice addition to my system!  I backup my backups but still sometimes I am performing a large file transfer or write between drives and a crash during the operation would suck.  Nothing I can't recover from just a general suck!!

This of course is a learning thread for the "just in case" should such an event happen.  Never has so far.

In the area where I live we get 3-5 times a year the electricity in the neighborhood flashes on and off for about 30 seconds, mostly about 10 seconds tops.  Not too often but it happens.  I have lived here for over a decade and never has the power been out for more than an hour.  So yes a power backup would make sense and I will attend to that in the next two months.  Power supplies also have the added benefit of "smoothing out" the electrical current source going to the computers and stuff.  A power supply that would run my computer and router for 10-15 minutes is all I need.  During that time I could easily perform a safe shutdown of anything critical.  Good ideas.   Thanks all.

Guys I really appreciate the responses to what I hope never happens to any of us.  I have spent almost all of my "bitcoin life" for the past ten years on a laptop.  In the past year I upgraded to a high end desktop but it doesn't have a battery like my laptops did.  I was picturing clicking SEND on a Trezor, after reviewing the transaction, addresses, etc.... are all good to go  ---- BUT then at that instant the power goes dark!

I only use HD wallets or T Suite for BTC movements.  Mainly Electrum with my Trezors.  As I suspected it appears even in that instance that I would eventually be whole, if not instantly upon power return.  I don't know what makes me think of such things, but in reality it could happen!!  Thanks for the consideration of my question!!

Trying to research this a little bit.  This has NOT happened to me but I am studying a possible worst case scenario here.  As per the thread title what would the "math" say about immediate power loss after clicking send in Trezor/Suite or in Electrum?  I was wondering if it is possible that such a transaction could get hosed in such a way that the funds would get stuck or worse in the wrong place?  By stuck I don't mean a couple of hours to work itself out but a complete stuck scenario?  Even if I always use a Laptop the router could lose power at exactly the worst instant in time.  Just asking???

I would love to hear about and read any links on this subject.

BIP 39 is just safer for me because I have multiple hardware wallets and moving SEED in some emergency makes that child's play.  Of course I will never place SEED on a computer but you have to be able to universally use SEED when the sh** hits the fan, if ever.