Proton, the Swiss company behind ProtonMail and ProtonVPN, has released a beta version of the newest offering in its suite of products that help to preserve online privacy — Proton Wallet.

The wallet is great for those looking to send bitcoin on-chain with relative ease, but it leaves some to be desired for more advanced users or for those who want to make smaller payments quickly and cheaply.

Pros And Cons

Proton Wallet’s standout feature is that it allows you to send bitcoin using nothing more than a recipient’s email address, which doesn’t have to be a ProtonMail address. The non-custodial bitcoin-only wallet is also free to use and has an easy-to-navigate user interface (UI).

However, it lacks in that it only allows users to make transactions on the Bitcoin base chain — not over Lightning — which can take upwards of hours to settle, and it doesn’t allow users to manage their UTXOs. Plus, it’s a software wallet and cannot be disconnected from the internet like a hardware wallet, which increases the risk of the wallet’s private keys being compromised.

Getting Started With Proton Wallet

To use the beta version of the product, you need an invitation either from the company or another user. The wallet is currently available via web browser, as an Android app and as a TestFlight version of an Apple app and takes 5 to 10 minutes to set up and begin using.

Once you’ve received an email invitation to use the wallet, you can click on the “Start using Proton Wallet” link in the invitation email to get started setting it up. (Email addresses have been blacked out below and throughout this review to preserve privacy.)

You’ll be taken to a “wallet setup” page where you’ll simply click a button to get started with Proton Wallet. You won’t be prompted to write down the 12-word seed phrase as you set up the wallet, which was a nice touch by Proton to help users to more simply get started using the wallet. You can write down the seed phrase later if you please, though.

As you set up the wallet, Proton makes it clear that your Proton Wallet is a non-custodial Bitcoin wallet, which means that managing the wallet is your responsibility and your responsibility alone.

The home screen of the wallet is straightforward and incredibly easy to navigate. It’s as pared down so as to include little more than the basics you need to send, receive and buy bitcoin.

Depositing Bitcoin In Proton Wallet

To begin using the wallet, you’ll first have to deposit some bitcoin. You can deposit bitcoin from another wallet you manage. To do so, you’ll need to copy the bitcoin address by clicking on the “Receive” button on the home screen and then clicking the “Copy Bitcoin address” button in the window that pops up on the right of the screen.

You’ll copy that address into the proper field from the wallet you’re sending it from. It’s good practice to double check that the address you’ve pasted matches the address you’ve copied.

The bitcoin won’t appear in your Proton Wallet balance immediately. It usually takes at least a few minutes for the transactions to process, as this depends on how long it takes for block confirmations to occur. Some transactions can take much longer — upwards of hours.

You can see that the funds are on their way, though, in the “Transactions” section of the home screen. You’ll continue to see an “In progress” notification until the necessary amount of block confirmations has occurred.

Buying Bitcoin With Proton Wallet

If you don’t have any bitcoin to send to your Proton Wallet, you can also use the wallet to buy some. This process is relatively straightforward.

You can click the “Buy” button on the home screen and you’ll be taken to a page that serves as an interface for crypto asset service providers Ramp and Banxa.

Complete the fields for how much bitcoin you want to purchase, choose whether you want to use Banxa or Ramp and select your payment method.

Instructions from this point vary depending on the payment method you choose.

Sending Bitcoin With Proton Wallet

You can send bitcoin as simply as clicking the “Send” button on the home screen and then inputting either a bitcoin address or an email address. Note that your recipient doesn’t need a ProtonMail address.

I used an email address to send some bitcoin.

Next, you’ll be taken to an “Amount” page, where you’ll input the amount of bitcoin you’d like to send, denominated either in either a fiat currency or sats.

On the “Review” page, you can leave a message for the recipient. It’s optional to do so.

On this page, you’ll also be presented with the total amount of your transaction and be given the option to increase or decrease the priority of your transfer.

You won’t be presented with the option to select UTXOs to spend, an option that a desktop Bitcoin wallet like Sparrow provides you with.

If you’re comfortable with the amount you want to send and the fee, you can click the “Confirm and send” button.

If you’d like to increase or decrease the speed of your transaction, you can select a higher or lower network fee by clicking the arrow to the right in the “Network fee” section of the page.

When you do so, a new window will pop up, allowing you to select different network fees.

“High priority” transactions process fastest are the most expensive. Transactions via Proton Wallet default to “Median priority” if you do not select the level of priority you prefer.

You’ll be able to see whether or not your transaction has cleared by looking at the “Transactions” section.

In my case, the recipient was notified that the bitcoin was on the way before the transaction received the required number of confirmations on the blockchain.

I sent this transaction with “Median priority,” and it took over an hour to complete.

Securing Your Proton Wallet

Proton Wallet lets you secure and back up your wallet in different ways.

The first level of security for the wallet is the password you use to log in to it, which you create when you set up the wallet.

Proton Wallet lets you add a second level of security by offering two-factor authentication (2FA).

To set this up, you can click on the “Secure your wallet” tab in the top right hand corner of the home screen. You’ll then be presented with the option to set up 2FA for your wallet.

If you want to add 2FA protection to your account, you can click the “Set up 2FA to secure your account” button. When you do so, you’ll be taken to a page on which you can toggle a switch to set up 2FA for the account. If you choose to do this, toggle the “Authenticator app” switch and follow the subsequent instructions.

Backing Up Your Proton Wallet

Proton Wallet allows you to back up your wallet’s seed phrase whenever you’d like. To do so, you can click on “Backup this wallet’s seed phrase” on the home screen.

You’ll then be taken to a screen that explains what a seed phrase is and why it’s important to safely back it up. Click the “View wallet seed phrase” button to view the seed phrase for your wallet.

It’s best practice to store your seed phrase offline (e.g., written on a piece of paper or imprinted on steel) so that it can’t be compromised.

Discover and Customer Service

Proton Wallet has a substantial “Discover” section in which you can learn more about everything from what Bitcoin is to Proton Wallet’s security model.

Proton also makes it relatively easy for you to get in touch with customer service staff, though, response times are currently unknown.

Conclusion

Proton Wallet is a good Bitcoin wallet for beginners, especially those looking to send bitcoin with relative ease, using nothing more than an email address.

The pros of this non-custodial wallet are that it’s free to use, easy to set up and secure. It’s also bitcoin only and open-source.

However, one notable con of the wallet is that it only allows you to transact on the bitcoin base chain, which means your transactions may incur high fees and take over an hour to fully process. For this reason, you wouldn’t want to use Proton Wallet if you’re looking to make cheap, fast micropayments — the types of transactions you can make over Lightning.

Another drawback of the wallet is that it doesn’t permit you to manage UTXOs. And it’s a software wallet, which means it’s less secure than a hardware wallet in certain regards.

With that said, if you’re new to Bitcoin and already familiar with the interfaces for Proton products, then this wallet may be a good option for you.

This post Proton Wallet Review: A Bitcoin Software Wallet That Simplifies Transactions first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Frank Corva.

This is an opinion editorial by Shawn Amick — all thoughts and recommendations are entirely the authors and not an official Bitcoin Magazine endorsement.

Cryptotag recently allowed me to test one of their latest products, Odin, which is a unique product that means to secure self-custodied keys with a set of titanium, laser-etched hexagons that each store a partial key (a “share”) that is split using Shamir Secret Sharing.

Shamir Secret Sharing

Shamir Secret Sharing allows you to split your seed into m “shares” where any n of them can be used to rebuild your original seed. But anyone holding less than n shares does not even have a partial copy of your seed. This also means that you can lose m – n recovery shares and still be able to rebuild your seed. A more detailed explanation is available here.

In order to use Odin, you’d need to select the correct amount of words per recovery share— in this case, that would be 20 words per share, as Odin only supports a 20-word capacity.

Shamir Secret Sharing generates a random word for each of the 20 words included in a share. The words generated are pulled from a predetermined list of words that have been hand-picked to optimize for security (the word list can be found here).

Each word has a corresponding number. For example, “academic” is correlated to the number one. This number is represented as 0001 in the SLIP-0039 (Shamir Secret Sharing) Word List that was sent with Odin.

Shamir utilizes a setup similar to multisig, except instead of creating a wallet from multiple seeds you just have a single seed that can be assembled from multiple recovery shares. The Shamir setup consists of the following parameters: Total Shares and Thresholds.

Total Shares: The number of recovery shares to be created for a specific seed. For instance, if a customer wanted there to be a total of five recovery shares, they would create five Total Shares. We will return to the actual process of creating these elements further below.

Threshold: The necessary number of recovery shares required to be able to rebuild your seed. Continuing with the example above, if we have five Total Shares, we might want to set a Threshold of three. This means that of the Total Shares (five) that exist for this wallet, we only need three of the recovery shares to reassemble our seed.

Odin

The product is packaged in a sizeable black box with the words “This is for the HODLers” inscribed on it. In the box you will find the titanium hexagons, their accompanied silicon sleeves, an anvil (used to hold the hexagons in place to engrave later), a HODL BODL (very cool water bottle), matches, ear plugs, a high-quality center punch (for engraving), setup guide, some snacks and, in my case, a Trezor hardware wallet.

The titanium hexagon stands at 0.87 inches tall, 4.7 inches long and 0.98 inch wide.

While it fits easily into a pocket, I wouldn’t recommend carrying your keys with you everywhere you go for people to see, even if the silicon sleeve with “Cryptotag” embedded on it looks great.

Odin is sleek and compact in design. The titanium hexagons used for creating the recovery shares are black with four sections per side.

One side reads: Total Shares, Threshold, Share Number and Wallet Number (if you have multiple wallets, you can designate which wallet that particular hexagon applies to).

Each of the remaining five sides has four numbers. For example, the first side is numbers 1-4, then 5-9 and so on. Each number has four digit grids beside it with the numbers 0-9 in each. The digit grids are used for the Shamir backup as a way to encode each word in the recovery share.

Each word has a corresponding number from the word list. For example, “academic” is word number one. For Odin, this number is represented as 0001. Remember, there are four digit grids for each number. Therefore, if the first recovery share word is “academic,” this is how we would proceed:

On the first section of the hexagon represented by a large “1”—this indicates it is recording the first word of the recovery share—you would punch “0” in the first three digit grids and then “1” in the fourth and final digit grid for the first recovery share word.

Now what do I mean by punching a number? How does it actually get associated with the correct number on the digit grid?

User Experience And Guide

Assuming the consumer has zero experience with hardware wallets or self-custody, it needs to be said that this process was exceptionally easy and only mildly time-consuming.

Once you receive the setup guide, the first pages walk you through the simple steps to setup a Shamir Secret Sharing backup supported through Trezor’s hardware wallet, (Shamir has limited support from other hardware wallets).

The steps were simple. First, connect the Trezor wallet to your computer via its USB cable. You will be prompted by the device to go to Trezor’s website where you will be asked to download Trezor’s application onto your computer. The download is quick and easy.

Once the application is up and running, the computer will prompt you to install a firmware upgrade on the device. Once completed, the application will give you two simple choices with pictures. Do you want a normal backup or Shamir?

After clicking Shamir, Trezor walks you through some simple steps setting up a pin number, the generation of each share and specifying the threshold and wallet numbers discussed earlier. It’s extremely easy and user-friendly.

Once the amount of shares is picked, you’ll generate the words associated with each 20-word recovery share for the number of shares chosen. Trezor will prompt you to write these words down—manually!—and will remind you to make sure it is not digitally stored anywhere.

This next part is where things go a little slow. In the goodie bag Cryptotag sent you will find a “conversion sheet” for each hexagon purchased. Here you will find a slot for all 20 words associated with the recovery share of each hexagon. Below where you can write the words, you’ll notice four boxes underneath each word. Simply write the words down, ignoring the boxes below the space for the words.

In the box you’ll also find “SLIP-39 Word List”. Each word, as I mentioned before, is represented by a four-digit number. Locate each of your 20 words per share in the word list and write the corresponding number down below the word.

Now we locate the center punch tool. Remember, these hexagons are titanium, which means in order to leave a mark it takes some pressure. This is also why Cryptotag sends earplugs. I didn’t feel the need to use them, but the neighbors might have appreciated it if I gave the earplugs to them.

For each word of the Shamir backup, you will punch the four-digit number into each section.

This process needs to be repeated for all 20 words for each hexagon being used (one per recovery share). It takes some time, but once it is complete, you’ll have a fire- and water-resistant, laser-etched titanium backup capable of being dispersed in a way that is guaranteed not to hurt you if one is lost or stolen.

Conclusion

Odin is a practical and durable solution to alleviating much of the concern around protecting your keys (seed phrases). I’m thrilled Cryptotag allowed me this opportunity to become a fan of their product. That being said, I did have some concerns.

While anyone holding onto a recovery share for you could look up the public list of words and then decode each word from the punched numbers on Odin, it would still only lead to one share being compromised which means that the threshold would not be broken, maintaining the safety of your keys. This requires clean management of your shares and trusted parties (if applicable), but that’s hardly different from your standard self-custody solution.

The center punch used to engrave each digit on Odin wasn’t perfect, but I wasn’t miserable. I managed to get all the way through one hexagon before I had issues with it. After that, the mechanism that holds the end in place began to shift. The fix was a simple movement to return in place, but I did have a fear that it might stop mid-process.

The setup guide isn’t worded for advanced users, but it also isn’t worded for beginners. As mentioned above, I reached out to clarify definitions and processes just to be sure. I would have liked for the guide to be a bit more detailed.

The digit grids used to punch in the numbers associated with each word are really small. I’m sure this is by design to keep the product compact. However, I did find myself not being entirely happy with the mark I left which caused me to just add another mark.

The sleek design matched with immense durability offers peace of mind for those looking to take the extra step in security with a bold aesthetic that is hard not to like. Upon testing my Trezor recovery process, I found it worked fine, with the obvious note that any mistake in the creation of the shares would lead to an error upon recovery. All that being said, this is a product for HODLers who appreciate aesthetics and have extra money to spend. I’d happily do it again, but it’s hardly a necessity.

This is a guest post by Shawn Amick. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

This post A Review Of Cryptotag’s Multi-Share Titanium Seed Phrase Solution, Odin first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Shawn Amick.

Bitcoiners attempting to do their part to secure the network, and run their own full nodes that fully validate transactions and blocks, often turn to hardware and software solutions provided by a range of groups. But those who were leveraging node hardware provided by Casa are now in search of a new solution.

Casa no longer supports its node hardware with ongoing updates, leaving plenty of Bitcoiners wondering how they can keep an updated full Bitcoin node running on their old Casa Node hardware. In the video above, Bitcoin Magazine’s Nik Hoffman recommends installing MyNode on existing Casa Node hardware to continue contributing to the Bitcoin network. 

To help, he provides a step-by-step tutorial on how to do so along with a visual walkthrough. Basic steps include:

1. Unplugging your node hardware
2. Opening the hardware and removing the microSD card inside
3. Plugging the microSD card into your computer
4. Visiting MyNode’s website and following the steps listed to install its software onto the microSD card
5. Reinserting the microSD card into the Casa Node hardware
6. Plugging the device back into its power source, router, etc.
7. Visiting MyNode.Local to complete the onboarding process and return to securing the Bitcoin network

Of course, the video tutorial above provides much more detail and a visual walkthrough for those looking to keep their Casa Node running. Be sure to watch it and subscribe to Bitcoin Magazine’s YouTube page for more helpful Bitcoiner walkthroughs.

This post Video: How To Install MyNode on Your Old Casa Node first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Peter Chawaga.

Bitcoin Magazine reviewed the Billfodl Multishard, a two-of-three stainless steel recovery seed storage device that allows you to split your seed into three shards, ensuring that, even if someone finds one part of your phrase, they won’t be able to steal your funds.

Each shard allows you to store up to 16 words of your seed phrase, and each unit tells you which 16 out of the 24 total words to load up. Shard One houses words 1 to 16, Shard Two houses words 9 to 24 and Shard 3 houses words 1 to 8 and 17 to 24. Once this process is complete, you will have effectively backed up each seed word twice. 

As mentioned in the video review, you can also choose to use just eight slots per shard and fill the rest up with random letters to achieve a three-of-three setup, which would ensure maximum security. Billfodl worked with an industry expert, Dave Bitcoin, the head of Wallet Recovery Services. Dave Bitcoin determined that, if utilizing 1,000,000 modern GPUs, it would take approximately 4 million years (not to mention the roughly $65 trillion it would cost to purchase and run 1 million modern GPUs, even assuming a low electricity cost of $0.02 per kilowatt hour). 

In terms of use and design, the sleek and sharp feel of the individual shards feels comfortable in your hands. However, the individual letters that need to be inserted into the shards come in a punch-out style container that can’t be sealed properly once it’s opened. So, be sure to set up the three shards in one attempt so that you won’t have to store any of the letters in a cumbersome matter. 

Overall, the Billfodl Multishard is an incredibly sturdy and secure device that, if properly set up, can allow any Bitcoiner to sleep safe at night knowing that their recovery seed phrase is safe and properly stored.

This post Video: Reviewing the Billfodl Multishard first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Michael Taiberg.

When it launched during The Lightning Conference in October 2019, HTC’s Exodus 1s smartphone took on the ambitious mission of endowing Bitcoiners with a device that delivers the security of a hardware wallet and the privacy and sovereignty of a full Bitcoin node. 

At a retail price of 219 euro (approximately $245), plus shipping tax, the device is more affordable than a Casa Node and twice as expensive as a Ledger Nano X hardware wallet. Weighing less than 6 ounces and sporting a shiny 5.7-inch screen, the HTC Exodus 1s is also the most portable full node solution available for retail. But is it really the ideal, all-in-one device to replace all of your Bitcoin-related items?

For more than a month, I tested the HTC Exodus 1s under various conditions to highlight both its hardware and software capabilities. The results were rather promising but still leave a lot to be desired from the perspective of a “Bitcoin power user.” Correspondingly, the next sections of this review will focus on the pros and cons of the first full node smartphone on the market. Ultimately, this review should provide useful insight that can benefit potential buyers — and also provide some feedback for HTC.

What’s in the HTC Exodus 1s Box?

As soon as you peel the plastic foil off of the HTC Exodus 1s’s plain white box, you are greeted by the core element of the packaging: the black and glossy phone. In terms of appearance, the HTC Exodus 1s looks a lot like a standard iPhone. However, the body is made of plastic, the screen is a 5.7-inch LCD, the Face ID infrared notch is replaced by a fingerprint scanner and the dual cameras are replaced by a single one. All of these adjustments have been made in order to reduce the costs of the HTC device, but otherwise the design is attractive and the feeling of holding the phone in your hand is pleasant. Compared to an iPhone, you can also maintain a better grip, as the build feels sturdy and not as slippery as Apple’s flagship device.

The accessories provided by HTC include a charging cable (micro USB-A), with a power plug that corresponds to your region, and a set of earphones. In the box, you will also find user manuals in multiple languages, a Zion-branded card that can be used to write seed keys, a couple of HTC badges, a pin which helps you open the SIM card tray and multiple HTC Exodus stickers.

The HTC Exodus 1s as a Smartphone

Out of the box, the HTC Exodus 1s is a rather basic Android device whose features are pretty standard for an entry-level to mid-range smartphone from 2019. It has a slick design, sports two 13-megapixel cameras (one in the front for video calls and selfies, and the other one in the back), is driven by the four-year-old Snapdragon 435 octa-core processor and boasts 4 gigabytes of RAM (for reference, the first-generation Casa node has only 2 gigabytes). The specs are toned down from the original Exodus 1 — but given the difference in price (the 1s is one-third as expensive), it makes sense to cut down on hardware expenses. 

In order to review the phone, I’ve used it for two weeks on a daily basis. Excluding any of the Bitcoin-related features, it functions very well and gets the job done for calls, emails and messaging applications. When used for these purposes, the Exodus 1s didn’t have any issues with slow loading times or laggy switching between apps.

The Android 8.1 Oreo operating system may be two generations behind the flagship standard, but it is still pretty smooth. Compared to Apple’s iOS, it has a less intuitive interface to opt-out from microphone, location and camera access — options that many Bitcoiners will want to leverage. But once you get the hang of it and remove the device from the Google panopticon, it’s really easy to use. On the plus side, the Orbot app can route all of your internet connections through Tor — which grants you great privacy. On the negative side, you can’t remove or replace the Google search bar from the home screen, and this is a constant reminder that you need to be cautious about your privacy.

What I found particularly impressive about the HTC Exodus 1s is the battery life. In the first month of using it, I was able to recharge the device every 10 to 12 days. All of that time, the 1s was connected to WiFi and it served an email management role. It should be noted that no SIM card was inserted, and this lack of mobile network connection definitely saved battery. However, after the full node was synced, the battery life reduced significantly, lasting only one full day (as the relaying takes up RAM and processing power).

On the other hand, the cameras are below average for 2019/2020 standards: They take time to focus, they don’t capture colors that look especially vivid and they lack some features that photography enthusiasts find useful on flagship Android devices and iPhones (such as portrait mode, night mode, shutter time, live pictures and Animojis/Memojis). However, there are plenty of applications that can improve the quality and aesthetic of pictures through filters and advanced options. Also, it’s unlikely for anyone to have high photographic expectations from a $245 phone or to purchase a Bitcoin-friendly device for its camera.

Before Syncing the Full Node: HTC’s Zion App

The full Bitcoin node is definitely the most unique feature and the primarily selling point of the HTC Exodus 1s. But in order to proceed with the initial block download, you must first fulfill two conditions: Acquire an SD card that can store more than 260 GB of data (there are 400 GB and 512 GB options, both of which are available for about $100 in most electronics stores), and conduct the download through HTC’s Zion application.

While the former prerequisite is reasonable (the phone only has 64 GB of storage, which means it can only accommodate a pruned node), the latter limits the possibilities involved in a process that should be about liberation and financial sovereignty. Zion, the phone’s proprietary application, serves as a wallet and a dashboard for your full node. Therefore, in order to start downloading and validating the entire history of bitcoin transactions, you must comply with HTC’s privacy policy and accept the inclusion of some features and the lack of others.

For instance, the Zion wallet is not Bitcoin-only and even has dedicated menus for DApps like Maker and Augur, and collectibles like CryptoKitties and Etheremon. The inclusion of these extra features may only be disappointing from a toxic maximalist perspective (where anything unrelated to Bitcoin will automatically be frowned upon), but it does prove that HTC’s main efforts to develop software for the phone were not Bitcoin-centric. 

Also, the Bitcoin wallet itself lacks some very important features. It has no SegWit support and uses a single legacy address for all incoming transactions (which translates to higher fees and very poor privacy), and there is no way to manually set transaction fees (you only pick your time preference). Therefore, running your full Bitcoin node is definitely not the mobile equivalent of using Bitcoin Core on your computer.

Overall, the ecosystem that HTC built to work with the integrated hardware wallet is underwhelming from a software point of view. While the idea of running a Bitcoin full node should involve more financial freedom to send and receive payments, HTC’s Zion app makes it feel constraining. 

Syncing the Full Bitcoin Node

On most computers, synchronizing a full Bitcoin node takes about two or three days, depending on internet speed, hard drive reading and writing speed (it’s recommended to use an SSD) and RAM allocation. The HTC Exodus 1s has great specifications and should be able to download and validate all of the transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain in less than a week. However, my experience was different and it took 15 days to complete the process.

Interestingly, I lost the first day waiting for the node to sync while I had Tor routing activated. As it turns out, this version of the software won’t allow the process to start if that feature is enabled — but after the synchronization was completed, Tor worked just like it should.

I thought that the slow initial sync was a peculiar phenomenon, especially after I placed the phone next to a router in charging mode. Also, the back cover got noticeably warmer during this computation-intensive process. Another full node was being operated on the same Wi-Fi network, so the slow download was not caused by the connection itself.

Furthermore, the device’s specs should be more than capable of a faster download. The phone is endowed with 4 GB of RAM, which makes it just as powerful as the Casa 2 and the Nodl One. Unfortunately, even at peak synchronization, the Zion software did not allow the phone to use more than 165 megabytes of RAM — a mere 4 percent of the device’s capacity. On average, the Exodus 1s only used 85 MB from its memory.

While it’s understandable that the operating system requires a significant chunk of the memory to run and it’s important for the phone to remain operational during the initial synchronization of the Bitcoin node, it’s still strange to see that developers from HTC didn’t allocate more RAM for this process when the phone is in idle mode. There’s a missed opportunity there, as most Bitcoiners most likely won’t use the phone during the sync — or will at least leave it untouched for eight hours or so while they sleep, which poses a perfect opportunity for the software to bump the RAM allocation.

The issue at stake is nothing that HTC can’t fix in a future update. Being able to do the initial sync with Tor turned on and allowing the phone to allocate more RAM for a faster sync would involve tweaks in the Zion app — hopefully something the company will work on in the future.

Using the Full Node on the Exodus 1s

After 15 long days, it was finally time to try some Bitcoin and Lightning applications. As previously mentioned, the built-in Zion app is underwhelming as a wallet (because it uses a single receiving address, doesn’t allow for UTXO management and doesn’t grant manual control for fees). There are better alternatives out there, such as Blockstream Green which offers lots of power user features in a simple and comprehensive user interface. 

However, the full node feature of the HTC Exodus 1s didn’t seem to work with anything outside of the Zion ecosystem. Unlike Bitcoin Core, Zion’s settings menu does not display options regarding specific connectivity and there is only a generic feature to allow incoming connections.

My next attempt was to use the full Bitcoin node in order to onboard the Lightning Network. I’ve downloaded the wallets developed by Lightning Labs, ACINQ (both Eclair and Phoenix) and Nayuta, but none of them connected to the full node. Therefore, I was unable to run Lightning with the phone’s built-in and completely synchronized Bitcoin node feature.

However, this state of Bitcoin node isolation is only temporary and is bound to change with future updates. 

“The full node is not designated to only work with the Zion app,” HTC Exodus Decentralized Chief Officer Phil Chen told Bitcoin Magazine. “The current limitation is because the Bitcoin data folder is under isolated storage in the Zion app, which cannot be accessed by other apps. We are working to support other apps in the future by exporting APIs from HTC Core.” 

New features for the HTC Exodus 1s are expected to be announced during the Bitcoin 2020 conference, which takes place in late March 2020 in San Francisco. 

“We have several exciting plans that we are looking to announce at Bitcoin 2020,” Chen added. “Please stay tuned!” 

Improvements to Be Made

As noted above, I tested the HTC Exodus 1s for two months and it proved to be a great device for every task except the unique feature which might represent its main selling point — the full Bitcoin node. Though the node works well after the otherwise lengthy synchronization, at review time it was still limited to only functioning with the wallet provided by the Zion app. 

Ideally, HTC should create the mobile equivalent of Bitcoin Core with more features for dedicated Bitcoiners, such as full SegWit support and bech32 addresses, the ability to set fees manually, UTXO control for greater sending privacy, unlimited address generation for better receiving privacy, and integrations with wallets that support the Lightning Network. To maintain a focus on simplicity, easy ways to switch to specific apps that offer extra features could be added to the interface. For instance, for Liquid Network or Lightning, there could be added buttons that automatically download and link with Blockstream Green or Zap (or any Lightning wallet, for that matter).

Another improvement that HTC must make involves RAM usage during the initial sync: 165 MB is definitely not enough for a speedy process and the amount should get bumped to 1 GB or more during moments when the phone is charging or is idling. This can also be an option that users can toggle on or off, as Bitcoiners will certainly understand that they must not touch the phone for a few days until the synchronization is complete.

Also, replacing the Ethereum features (there’s even a search bar for Etherscan on the second home screen of the phone, and it can’t be removed by users) with Bitcoin ones would definitely be a step in the right direction, given the fact that the target audience consists of people who clearly understand the value proposition of Bitcoin and want to maximize their privacy, security and sovereignty.

The HTC Exodus 1s offers a great value for the price and is a pioneering device in the Bitcoin space. However, in order for the device to truly satisfy the needs of Bitcoiners, it needs to provide more functionality and step outside of the rigid Zion ecosystem. Bringing integrations and ways to connect the full node to third-party applications is definitely a first good step, but optimizing Zion for newcomers to have more features is also a priority.

Special thanks to Chen and HTC for sending the phone for review.

This post Review: HTC Exodus 1s, the Full Bitcoin Node Smartphone first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Vlad Costea.

Full nodes are an indispensable part of Bitcoin’s system of checks and balances. They further decentralize the network, they keep miners honest, they verify and register every transaction that takes place on the blockchain, and they provide more autonomy and privacy to users.

In order to run a full Bitcoin node, it’s enough to download the Bitcoin Core client on your computer and wait for the initial block download (IBD) to complete. However, some individuals may find that process cumbersome and unnecessarily time consuming. Consequently, companies have developed solutions that minimize the struggles of downloading and running a full node and put it all in a box.

Thanks to these enterprising companies, full nodes have become one of the most popular and in-demand Bitcoin-related products, right up there with hardware wallets. Thanks to a growing community understanding around the importance of full nodes and the rapid growth of the Lightning Network, new companies such as Casa, Nodl, Shift Cryptosecurity and even HTC have released retail products that satisfy the demand for convenient sovereignty.

There are at least seven worthy contenders for your full node product consideration. And it’s also worth considering how you might build some of these products yourself. 

Why Buy a Bitcoin Full Node Product

Many Bitcoiners out there might not be convinced that it’s worth buying a product that comes pre-synced with the vast majority of the Bitcoin blockchain. After all, for about a quarter of the price, you could buy an external drive and leave your computer to sync the blockchain overnight. This way, your information wouldn’t be registered with any Bitcoin company and your financial privacy would be better preserved, and it’s likely more secure to download and verify the Bitcoin blockchain yourself (as opposed to trusting a potentially malevolent third party).

However, full node products offer much more than just “Bitcoin Core in a box.” The majority of them run Lightning clients, and some even include BTCPay Server for merchant solutions, Samourai Whirlpool for trustless CoinJoins or Electrum Personal Server for greater sovereignty. In two cases (Shift Cryptosecurity’s BitBoxBase and HTC’s Exodus 1s), a hardware wallet chip is included as a way of increasing the security of your full node.

These devices also offer advanced and desirable features that can be accessed from a user-friendly dashboard. For instance, Casa provides a multisig service which entrusts the company with a key for inheritance purposes, while Shift Cryptosecurity integrates the BitBoxBase in its ecosystem of security-related products (the BitBox02 hardware wallet and the BitBoxApp).

Last but not least, some companies offer advanced customer support and will make sure that your experience with the node is seamless. You don’t need to check if you’re downloading the right client, you don’t have to check the PGP or GPG signatures of developers and you don’t have to consider compatibility issues. It’s all being taken care of, but you have to trust that the company is honest. 

If You Do Run a Bitcoin Full Node Product, Be Cautious

Before presenting the features of the best-known and most popular full node products, it’s important to present a disclaimer: If you choose to trust in a company’s privacy policy and honesty, please take into account its public record and the user feedback. Though the market is bourgeoning with competitive full node products that add more features and drive prices down, malevolent actors might emerge to steal your bitcoin. 

If the node comes pre-synced, it’s better to not trust a third party’s honesty and resync the blockchain from scratch (or else it’s possible to encounter backdoor attacks and all sorts of unwanted background activities that can lead to theft). The extra applications can also be compromised, even if the intentions of the manufacturer are good — the attack surface grows with every new app.

Not vesting your trust in a third party isn’t just an ideological component for the Bitcoin community, but a cautious behavior that’s meant to preserve privacy and fund security. It may be wise to go for the relatively inexpensive RaspiBlitz DIY project or MyNodeBTC rather than one of the products described below. You will have to manually check signatures, download each file yourself and make sure that everything is in tune, but the benefits of sovereignty and acquired knowledge outweigh the inconvenience and potentially difficult learning curve. 

The 7 Bitcoin Full Node Product Contenders

For the scope of this overview, seven of the most popular bitcoin full node products have been selected. Nonetheless, their mention in this article is not an endorsement or a way of vouching for their reliability or security. Financial sovereignty must be embraced with great responsibility and cautiousness and in this early stage of the market it’s difficult to tell which product is “best.” To their credit, all nodes presented in this article run audited, open-source software. However, no project is as time-tested as Bitcoin Core and even reputed Lightning clients such as Lightning Labs’ lnd and Blockstream’s c-lightning may be buggy. Extra applications should also be used with precaution. 

Casa Node 2

The Casa node is by far the most popular product on the market. The first version of the device has received good reviews and endorsements from bitcoiners, and the Node 2 will begin shipping in early 2020. This updated version comes with twice as much access memory and SSD storage — both of which will greatly increase the efficiency of the node. Under the same dashboard, it will run Bitcoin Core, lnd and BTCPay Server.

Nodl One

Conversely, Nodl always seems to one-up Casa with more power and extra features. When the Casa 2 opted for a quad-core processor, the Nodl went for the hexa-core version. And when BTCPay Server became the new norm, Nodl added ElectrumX and Samourai Whirlpool. The company also offers a more expensive Nodl Dojo which helps with the decentralization of the Samourai CoinJoin operations by running the mixes on-device. However, for the purpose of this comparison, only the One model will be considered.

Lightning in a Box

Lightning in a Box also attempts to overthrow Casa with a more powerful processor (the Intel Celeron J4105, which is used on laptops), a more common PC platform whose RAM can be upgraded and the ability to run Windows. If anything, the device seems more general-purpose and offers a more DIY vibe. However, it’s sold at the same price as the Casa Node 2 and may not be the more popular choice in spite of its greater processing power.

Lux Node

The Lux Node is basically an Intel NUC5CPYH mini computer that comes with Bitcoin Core, lnd, BTCPay Server and Ride the Lightning pre-installed. To its merit, it runs on the more stable (at least compared to Windows) Ubuntu operating system and offers 8 GB of RAM (twice as much as any other product featured in this overview). However, the company is rather new and more difficult to trust — proceed with caution and contact a representative before making a purchase.

BitBoxBase

Specs-wise, Shift Cryptosecurity’s BitBoxBase is very similar to the Nodl One: same processor, same amount of RAM (4 GB) and a dedicated eMMC drive for booting the software. However, the Swiss-made node is unique because it runs Blockstream’s c-lightning (for reasons explained in this interview) and also has an integrated BitBox02 hardware wallet for greater security. Its comparative downside is that it doesn’t run BTCPay Server and doesn’t come with other pre-installed Lightning apps (which may be a consequence of both Shift Cryptosecurity’s focus on security and the choice of a less popular Lightning client).

myNode One+ 

The myNode One+ comes with a familiar hardware architecture, which you can also find in the BitBoxBase and Nodl One. On the plus side, it offers lots of pre-installed applications that can be controlled from a friendly dashboard (Electrum Server, Ride the Lightning, a block explorer, Zap, Blue Wallet and many others), is $100 cheaper than the Casa Node 2 and grants documentation to help anyone start a DIY project. On the downside, the device is endowed with a slower HDD and the company is rather new to the market (so you need to grant a greater amount of blind trust than in the case of Casa, for instance).

HTC Exodus 1s

Last but not least, the HTC Exodus 1s is the only mobile solution that natively runs a Bitcoin full node and can also use Lightning wallets like Nayuta’s. Through the Zion app, users are able to download the entire Bitcoin blockchain on an SD card (purchased separately) and use basic wallet functions. Though its specs are comparable on paper with the rest of the nodes, software limitations mean that it synchronizes more slowly than every other product in this overview. 

During a personal experiment, it took 15 days to sync the blockchain from scratch and I’ve discovered that the Zion application only uses 100 MB of RAM (out of 4 GB) for the sync. This significantly slowed down the process and proved that the phone is designed as a multipurpose device with the full node feature as an extra — rather than a dedicated device for financial sovereignty. Nonetheless, given the portability factor, it can’t be beaten for the price.

Buy vs. DIY

After presenting seven of the most popular Bitcoin full node products, it’s time to ask an essential question on behalf of potential consumers: How much more does it cost to buy the product directly from the company than it would to build it myself? 

Casa Node 2

The Casa Node 2 can be ordered for $399, but the company has opted for a subscription model. Correspondingly, you get a new device upon sign-up and free renewals whenever they occur, but you don’t necessarily receive a new node every year. You pay for the proprietary software development (which has been open-sourced for greater transparency and security audits), the customer support and the extra features which include the multisig program. Correspondingly, it’s not the most privacy-friendly solution and there is a lot of data that Casa can get if you choose to share your financial information.

The good news is that a Raspberry Pi 4 and a 1 TB SSD can be bought for $155, and the enclosure and cables shouldn’t cost more than $45. Therefore, if you have the patience and disposition to learn and experiment, you can build your own Casa node for $200 ($199 cheaper than buying it from the company, not including shipping costs). The DIY project doesn’t grant you access to the same support and custodial multisig service, but helps you keep your financial privacy.

Nodl One

The Nodl One has a retail price of $499 and, unlike Casa, this is a one-time purchase and you won’t have to pay for an annual service fee. Its processing power is superior, and the inclusion of the Samourai Whirlpool makes it a worthy contender for those who are more privacy- and fungibility-cautious. Nonetheless, you can theoretically build your own by purchasing an RK3399 board for $149 and an SSD for $100. Just like in the case of the Casa Node 2, the DIY solution is half as expensive and comes with the benefit of not having to register in a customer database for Bitcoin-related products.

Lightning in a Box

Lightning in a Box is basically a commercialized DIY project, as the company’s website also features useful guides to help you build your own Lightning node. Its target audience consists of people who want powerful hardware for their nodes and don’t want to bother with software experimentation. Interestingly, the cost of parts to build a Lightning in a Box is $302 — which means that you pay the company only $92 for the hassle of installing everything for you. However, it’s always better to resync from scratch once you get the device: The extra power will make the process smoother, and you won’t have to trust in the benevolence of the company.

Lux Node

Similarly, Lux Node uses a popular mini PC platform to deliver a quick sync and fast access to applications such as BTCPay Server and Ride The Lightning. However, the company’s business model is questionable: an Intel NUC5CPYH and a 1 TB SSD cost $399 on Amazon, and that’s exactly the price of a Lux Node. Maybe the folks behind the project will be able to lower costs through economies of scale, but the profit is still insignificant to keep a company running. Though the machine is the most powerful of any in this overview, it’s probably a good idea to do some research before buying a product for which the profit is minimal. After all, you can build your own Lux for the same price.

BitBoxBase

Despite all specifications being published on the Shift Cryptosecurity website, the BitBoxBase is the most difficult device to build yourself for one simple reason: It includes a hardware wallet whose specifications are similar to the BitBox02. The node is also the only product in this article whose launch date and price aren’t available as of the time of writing. But, given the cost of parts ($79.99 for the ROCK-Pro64 board, $100 for the 1 TB SSD and $100 for the BitBox02), it’s probably safe to estimate a retail price of $350 to $400.

myNode One

There is a clear reason why myNode One is the most affordable product in this article: The cost of its parts is only $94.95. The company also offers premium support for those who purchase the pre-built and pre-synced product, but the generous amount of DIY documentation makes it tempting to simply experiment. The nice, all-encompassing dashboard is also open-sourced on GitHub, so all of the benefits of the retail product can be verified, modified and installed on new hardware. 

HTC Exodus 1s

The cost of purchasing an HTC Exodus 1s and a 400 GB SD card is $340, which still makes the device cheaper than a Casa, Lightning in a Box or Lux Node device. And while building your own smartphone is much more expensive than buying one, you can still get any Android phone (which, in some cases, might be the one that you own) and run Lawrence Nahum’s ABCore client. 

On the other hand, it’s worth considering the unbeatable added benefit of the HTC phone: the integrated hardware wallet. Another device may be costly and may not deliver the same results (for instance, the BitBox02 costs another $100 and works with Android smartphones but is an extra peripheral to carry and connect). While the Zion ecosystem is rather basic and can be replaced by any time-tested Bitcoin mobile wallet, the hardware advantages of the HTC Exodus 1s make it unique and temporarily unbeatable. You can run a full node on your new Android phone, but you won’t get the same security that the integrated hardware wallet grants.

Conclusion

Products that offer full Bitcoin nodes in a box will continue to be popular retail items in the space, but they should be evaluated and purchased with caution. There are at least seven worthy contenders if you’re in the market for such a product and the one you’ll want will depend on your specific needs. Use the article above and the chart below to help understand the differences between these seven contenders and remember that running a full node is one of the most important things a Bitcoiner can do.

This post Buy or DIY? An Overview of 7 Bitcoin Full Node Products first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Vlad Costea.

In this episode of the Bitcoin Magazine Podcast, Dave Hollerith talks with Kiara Bickers, author of Bitcoin Clarity: A Guide to Understanding Bitcoin. Bitcoin Clarity is different from other Bitcoin guides because it leverages a “systems thinking” approach to explain how and why each part of Bitcoin’s system has evolved into what it is today. The two discuss approximating decentralization, Bitcoin as a trustless time chain, the value and limits of information and more.

Follow Swann and Hollerith on Twitter and learn more about Bitcoin Clarity.

The following content is for informational purposes only. You should not construe any such information or other material as legal, tax, investment, financial or other advice. Nothing contained in this presentation constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement or offer by BTC Media, The Let’s Talk Bitcoin Network, or any third-party service provider to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments.

This post Podcast: Bitcoin Clarity With Kiara Bickers first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Bitcoin Magazine.

With self-sovereignty comes great responsibility. Being your own bank can be scary. After all, there’s a reason banks became a feature of modern society: they control the custody of assets, assume the risk of these assets and insure them for their customers. 

This is why most Bitcoiners hold security as the highest virtue. If you want to be your own bank, you need to make sure you’re taking every step necessary and available to secure your bitcoin from theft, seizure and damage. In this regard, no measure is too extreme. There is no such thing as being too secure.

This is why Ragnar Lifthrasir of Guns n’ Bitcoin created the Scorpion Case. Hardware wallets (with the added security buff of multisignatures) offer best-practice custody for your average user, but this may not be enough. In the event of a fire or natural disaster, if these wallets are destroyed (and the seed phrase backups destroyed with them), you can kiss goodbye to your hard-earned satoshis.

The Scorpion Case is meant to mitigate against physical damage and even assault — in addition to its padded interior that houses your hardware wallet, it also comes with molds to hold a handgun, two magazines and a knife (if this sounds paranoid, well you just haven’t considered every attack vector).

To see if the Scorpion Case is up to snuff, I ran it through a number of stress tests. These included: blunt force testing, waterproof testing, fire testing and bulletproof testing. 

Now, Lifthrasir’s company, Guns n’ Bitcoin, only advertises the Scorpion Case’s resilience against physical and water damage. It says nothing about fire, let alone firearm, resistance, but I wanted to test it all the same. I wanted to see just how sturdy this case was and if you can trust your hardware with it.

I would find that the Scorpion Case can take one hell of a beating. 

The Specs

Before we go over the stress tests, let’s start with the basics.

The case weighs in at 2.2 pounds with a 12.6-inch long, 9-inch wide and 4.4-inch high exterior. Its case shell is made of NK-7 polypropylene, a common industrial resin that is made to be both lightweight and sturdy. Guns n’ Bitcoin’s website advertises a water immersion resistance of up to 3.28 feet and heat resistance of 140 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Internally, the case is lined with closed-cell PEF foam on the bottom and a convoluted lid foam on the top to insulate hardware. Its molds can house a pistol, multiple hardware wallets, USB hookups and pistol ammo magazines. 

The release latches come with pinholes added to a padlock, and the hinges are underpinned by stainless steel.

Retailing for $88, the Scorpion Case is a bit pricier than other NK-7 polypropylene cases of its size, though Guns n’ Bitcoin is running a 30 percent off sale for the holidays that brings the price in line with other options.

With these specs in mind, let’s beat this sucker up.

Scorpion Case Stress Test One: Blunt Force and Sharp Force

For my first test, I bludgeoned the Scorpion Case with the blunt side of a splitting maul, and then I flipped the case to its other side to test its resistance to the axe end of the maul.

Guns n’ Bitcoin says that the case is built to withstand a category one impact under Air Transport Association (ATA) specification 300 — that is, it conforms to standards set by the ATA for hard case designs and impact resistance.

This basically means that the case is meant to withstand moderate trauma. It doesn’t, however, say anything about being resistant to heavy blows from something like a sledgehammer. With this in mind, the case exceeded my expectations from test one.

The first swing with the sledge end of the maul left a dent, and I was pleased to see that the hardware wallet I inserted into the case before testing was unscathed. Now, I have no way of measuring the PSI of the swing, but I came down with all my strength on the case and it withstood the test.

Next, I swung with the axe. To be expected, the resin cracked under this pressure (I anticipated this because, again, the case makes no guarantees against this kind of trauma), but it did not shatter. And once again, the hardware wallet was still intact. 

So, all of that to say, in the rare event that someone takes a sledgehammer to your Scorpion Case, it’s going to hold up for at least the first few swings. Additionally, if your house were to come toppling down, I’d imagine your hardware would remain safe under the rubble.

When it comes to impact resistance, the Scorpion Case performed very well under pressure. 

Scorpion Case Stress Test Two: Water 

For this next test, I ran the case under running water, back and front, for about ten seconds. 

Boring compared to an axe attack, I know, but it had to be done and, to be honest, there’s not much else to report. It’s as watertight as advertised, and even with the crack in the back from the axe blow, a negligent amount of moisture pooled behind the PEF foam but did not seep into the foam itself or run anywhere near the hardware wallet, which remained completely dry.

Regretfully, I didn’t think to do an immersion test, but given that no water breached the case under an open faucet, I would venture to bet that it’s good down to at least 3.28 feet as advertised and maybe even more. At the very least, if it’s exposed to rain or some leakage in its storage space in your house, you have nothing to worry about.

Scorpion Case Stress Test Three: Fire 

Once again, Guns n’ Bitcoin does not advertise its case as being fire resistant (only heat resistant up to 140 degrees Fahrenheit).

Still, I couldn’t help but to push the limits. So, using isopropyl alcohol and an old t-shirt (after a failed attempt at setting it ablaze with a molotov cocktail — yes, feel free to laugh), I exposed the underbelly to fire for about a minute.

The end result: The case withstood the flame but left the exterior’s plastic carbuncled with heat damage and melted off bits of the rubber-lined handle. It also fused the bottom and the top lip of the case, so I couldn’t open it with my bare hands afterward (the latches were unscathed, though).

The flame-licked resin fusing together is of little surprise, especially considering the heat would have been well above the 140 degree Fahrenheit mark (~1000 degrees Fahrenheit). That said, the hardware wallet was undamaged (as I would figure out after the next test) and the case’s shell was only bubbled over with heat damage, not burnt through from the test.

It wouldn’t survive a house fire, but it’s not supposed to anyway.

Scorpion Case Stress Test Four: Firearms 

This final test took the case to the extreme, well beyond what Guns n’ Bitcoin claims it can withstand.

For the first firearms test, I unloaded two 2 and 3/4 inch, 1 ounce birdshot shotgun rounds from a 20-gauge shotgun into the case from a distance of roughly 15 yards. Both of the shots blew the case wide open, thereby splitting the fused lid.

But the hardware wallet was still largely intact. The only deformity came from a crack caused by one of the pellets from the birdshot. I was shocked to see that it wasn’t completely shredded. In fact, the BB that did hit it was one of the few that actually penetrated the case. The NK-7 polypropylene absorbed most of the blow, and most of the BBs were embedded in the exterior casing. 

For the final test, I put the Scorpion Case up against an AR-15. Now, for those of you who are unaware, an AR-15 is essentially a semi-automatic, civilian version of the M16, one of the U.S. military’s most ubiquitous rifles. It shoots a 5.56 NATO round (and/or .223 Remington round, depending on the manufacturer) and can penetrate steel.

So naturally, it cut through the Scorpion Case like butter. I unloaded roughly 10 rounds into the case from 15 yards. The final two rounds, which entered the case from its bottom side just between the hinges, chipped two significant pieces of casing off. The hardware wallet, still, was undamaged, but if it had been in the path of one of the bullets, it would have been torn to bits.

Conclusion

It basically took an AR-15 to really bust up the Scorpion Case. While the 20-gauge blew the case open, the exterior still absorbed the vast majority of the birdshot and kept the wallet safe — and the latches still worked after this test, too. A shotgun from relatively close range would be enough to damage the case, but it probably wouldn’t be enough to break all of the hardware it houses. 

Overall, the Scorpion Case performed admirably under all of the stress tests. It’s impressively resistant to both blunt and sharp force trauma and is as watertight as you’d need. It’s not completely flame retardant, but even so, it resisted the fire well enough to keep it from eating a whole through the casing (prolonged exposure would still probably turn the thing into a hard, resinous lump, but Guns n’ Bitcoin isn’t making any promises there, and it was still incredibly resilient under the ~1000 degrees Fahrenheit I subjected it to).

My only regret is that I pushed the case to its limits and effectively destroyed it over the course of the tests. The fire and firearms really pushed it over the edge, but — if I can stress this one final time — even under these extreme conditions the hardware wallet escaped intact and is still operational. 

If you’re a Bitcoiner and looking for a solid case to protect your hardware, the Scorpion Case is top of the line — it under promises, over delivers and provides a sturdy, all-in-one option to hold all of your hardware wallets and your pistol (self-sovereignty in a box).

If you’re interested, you can purchase it for 30 percent off at Guns n’ Bitcoin just in time for the holidays.

This post Review: Scorpion Case Is a Hardware Wallet Carrier That Over-Delivers on Protection first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Colin Harper.

This is the third article in a three-part series that examines five of the most popular Bitcoin hardware wallets. Read the first part, focused on the wallets’ physical safety and outward appearance here. Read the second part, focused on simplicity, accessibility and privacy, here. By request, samples were provided by some of the companies for review purposes.

After assessing the physical sturdiness, appearance, simplicity, accessibility and privacy of five of the leading hardware bitcoin wallets on the market, it’s time to analyze arguably the most important feature of all: security. 

There are plenty of convenient features and integrations to be found in hardware wallets, but none of them are as valuable and important as the efficiency with which they secure your bitcoin. The main expectation of the device is not to enable Bluetooth connectivity or seamlessly integrate with a trading platform, but to serve its base function of keeping coins safe and away from hackers’ malevolence. Just like a mobile phone should be able to make calls before running 3D video games, a hardware wallet is supposed to offer robust cryptographic security. 

Thankfully, the devices scrutinized in this three-part analysis are the five best options available on the market, so any security compromises in favor of extra features are minimal. Furthermore, the hardware wallets covered in this review were not arbitrarily chosen — they each benefit from the positive recommendations of bitcoin.org. In no particular order, these devices are Trezor Model T, Ledger Nano X, ShapeShift’s KeepKey, Shift Cryptosecurity’s bitcoin-only BitBox02 and Coinkite’s Coldcard Mk3.

How to Assess Hardware Wallet Security

In the context of hardware wallets, there are multiple types of “security” and many complex issues that have to be taken into consideration. 

First of all, the private keys these wallets protect should not get leaked during remote or physical attacks. They must act as a proxy which manages your keys without being exposed to the risk of malware, spyware, keyloggers, viruses or other malicious pieces of software that can infect your computer. 

Secondly, both addresses and amounts of cryptocurrency being sent during transactions must be verifiable. Each hardware wallet is endowed with a universal microcontroller which communicates with its encrypted aspects and facilitates user input — and this is the most vulnerable and tricky component of these devices. Thankfully, the new generation of hardware wallets has solved any issues with this user input by integrating easily readable screens which display all of the information required to compare with the computer or mobile phone input before validating the transaction. (But, as a general piece of advice, always check everything to be sure that your device is functioning properly and doesn’t result in you losing your bitcoin.) 

Thirdly, it’s important to take into account the integration of secure chips (as in the case of the Ledger Nano X, BitBox02 and Coldcard) and the ease with which users can create a multisig security model (the Trezor Model T and Coldcard are the champions in that field).

Fourthly, it’s essential to reduce the attack surface by creating a Bitcoin-only firmware. Some manufacturers take this feature very seriously, and the fact that you can’t glitch the software due to the inclusion of altcoins can make a lot of difference in security. As scarce digital commodities, your bitcoin require uncompromising security. 

The use of open-source software and native SegWit (bech32) addresses are also criteria for security and privacy. The former enables easier audits by security experts and quicker fixes, while the latter reduces transaction fees and grants access to CoinJoins via Wasabi Wallet. 

Furthermore, it’s important to check if the hardware wallet manufacturer enables bounty programs for bug disclosures. The existence of a clear, financial incentive for the discovery of various security issues attracts ethical hackers who may bring significant contributions and ultimately add to security.

Last but not least, a price comparison will be presented. Sometimes the “you get what you pay for” principle applies and, in this context, it’s important to introduce cost as an extra metric for security. So, here are the sections you can expect to find in this final entry in this series:

1. History of hacks
2. The presence of secure chips
3. The difficulty of setting up multisig
4. The option of a bitcoin-only device
5. The use of open-source software
6. Support for bech32
7. Use of bug bounty programs
8. Price

1. History of Hacks

Historically speaking, every hardware wallet manufacturer has encountered issues with hackers and exploits. No design is perfect and absolute security from hacks is virtually impossible. The golden rule when it comes to hardware wallets is to treat them the same way you would treat paper wallets: Make sure that nobody gets physical access. For more information on physical security, please refer to the first article in this series.

This section is based on the findings of Wallet.fail, white hat hackers Dmitry Nedospasov, Josh Datko and Thomas Roth, as well as independent researchers Saleem Rashid, Sergei Volokitin, LazyNinja, TheCharlatan, Kaspar Etter and Reddit user De_Wilde_Weldoener. Furthermore, it should be noted that all of the issues presented have been fixed by the hardware wallet manufacturers and that the findings serve as a reminder that no device is perfect and should always be physically protected.

Trezor

During its 35C3 presentation in December 2018, the team members of the Wallet.fail project presented multiple issues with the Ledger and Trezor hardware wallets. Most notably, Roth was able to extract the seed phrases and PIN from a Trezor One, while his collaborator Nedospasov introduced a prototype for the “Trezor Glitcher” — a device which instantly exploits the vulnerabilities of Trezor hardware wallets. The issue they exploited was that private keys were being moved in the RAM during software upgrades, and a fix was released 62 days later with version 1.8.0 of the firmware.

Trezor’s devices were also found to be vulnerable in August 2017, as explained by security enthusiast Doshay Zero404Cool in an extensive blog post. Basically, the author identified vulnerability issues with the ST32F05 chip (which is used in the Trezor Model T and the KeepKey). Saleem Rashid has also written an article which explains all of the technical intricacies involved, and Trezor fixed the issue eight days later with firmware update 1.5.2.

These are only two of the most notable examples of security issues with Trezor hardware wallets, which have been identified and fixed over the last couple of years. However, it’s this openness and willingness to constantly solve security issues that makes Trezor a trusted, device manufacturer. The large community and the numerous security experts who constantly scrutinize the hardware and software developed by Trezor are one of its most important security guarantees and the reason why Trezor is still the industry standard for hardware wallets.

Ledger

From a design perspective, Ledger’s hardware wallets are the exact opposite of Trezor’s: They rely on a secure element chip which acts as a closed-source blackbox and aren’t as open about security. Its bounty program webpage doesn’t contain a list of fixed issues but only mentions bug submission criteria and procedures, as well as the company’s “Wall of Fame.”

Before the new Nano X model was launched in the second quarter of 2019, Ledger’s Nano S has been subjected to two significant and well-documented exploits. Firstly, Rashid reported a security issue in November 2017, which Ledger patched four months later. More specifically, the architecture of the microcontroller unit (which communicates with the buttons, screen and USB port) could be tweaked to run a custom firmware which tricks the secure element chip. 

In December 2018, the Wallet.fail team also managed to successfully launch a compromising attack on the Ledger Nano S, which allowed it to run the video game Snake on the device. It was a way for it to prove that the physical design is flawed and anybody can install malevolent software which bypasses the initial verification process and might be able to redirect the funds to another address. This demonstration was most likely a rebuttal to the famous statement made by Ledger co-founder BTChip, who tweeted support of the idea that Ledger devices are so secure that they can have their software reset and be sold to other users.

In May 2019, the Wallet.fail team identified a lack of memory protections in the STM32WB55 chip from the Ledger Nano X, and it’s still unclear if the issue was fixed by a firmware update. As a company, Ledger isn’t as transparent as Trezor and oftentimes doubles down on issues as intentional design choices (both Rashid and the Wallet.fail team have encountered communication issues). Therefore, purchasing any Ledger device implies trusting the company’s security model to a degree that isn’t necessarily compatible with the cypherpunk spirit of open-source software.

KeepKey

From a hardware and firmware perspective, the KeepKey is very similar to the Trezor Model T. The only major differences can be found in the enclosure (which is more premium in the case of the KeepKey), the design and architecture, and the software of choice (which ShapeShift has modified to fit its business philosophy).

In April 2019, Sergei Volokitin managed to take advantage of a design flaw in order to glitch the KeepKey. As he explains in his OffensiveCon19 presentation, Volokitin was able to successfully run an injection attack which glitched the device in less than five minutes and made it susceptible to the installation of custom, malevolent software. The conclusion drawn referred to the board design and choice of chips, as the microcontroller is not made to resist such attacks. Also, the large number of available commands also extends the attack surface when attempting to inject custom software that can steal the user’s bitcoin. 

As a hardware wallet manufacturer, KeepKey finds itself somewhere in the middle between Trezor and Ledger: not as open as the former, but not as opaque as the latter either. Also, the component and circuit similarities with the Trezor Model T may translate in common issues and identical fixes. The result can be great in terms of bug fixing, but the limitations of the hardware should also remind us that the product has been around since 2015 and definitely needs an update to newer security standards.

BitBox02

Shift Cryptosecurity’s BitBox02 was publicly launched less than a month before publication of this article, and this fact may give it an unfair advantage in terms of glitches and hacks: Security experts haven’t had enough time to test it.

The previous model, the BitBox01 (also known in its early days as Digital BitBox), suffered from a major design flaw which got fixed in the new iteration: It had no display to verify the amounts being sent and the corresponding bitcoin addresses. In this regard, it relied on a third-party device like a smartphone to show all of the required information. However, the method was both clunky and unsafe. 

As described in a lengthy blog post, Rashid was able to steal the private keys from the BitBox via malware, sign a different transaction from the one being displayed on the smartphone’s screen and extract the private keys from the device with physical access. Shift Cryptosecurity CEO Douglas Bakkum has fixed all of these issues with a firmware update, and the impact was minimal. However, it’s no wonder that the company has transitioned to a new design in a matter of months and decided to include a secure element chip which is similar to the one that’s found in the Ledger and Coldcard devices.

As for security reviews of the BixBox02, security researcher LazyNinja announced in November 2019 that he will likely publish an article about his findings in “a month or so.” 

Coldcard Mk3

Shortly before publication of this article, Shift Cryptosecurity employee TheCharlatan offered more information on a security issue that he identified in the Coldcard Mk3. Thanks to his credited disclosure, Coinkite fixed the bug in firmware release 3.0.2 — and the update became available to the public on November 1, 2019.

As it turns out, the Coldcard Mk3 had an exploit with partially signed bitcoin transactions (as introduced in BIP 174) that allowed attackers force users to send all of their unspent coins (UTXOs) to an address from which they can’t recover them. The attackers could demand a ransom before releasing the funds. TheCharlatan revealed that ransomers could make users receive coins on addresses that they could not recover from by making the device display multiple confusing lines of code to trick the users. This means that a receiving address could also be held under ransom by attackers.

Editor’s note: h/t to TheCharlatan for the explanation above.

A solution to the issue has been found and Coldcard owners have been advised to install the 3.0.2 firmware update. However, according to a blog post by TheCharlatan, a conflict of some kind seems to have been sparked between Coinkite and Shift Cryptosecurity due to the fact that Coinkite downplayed the impact of the vulnerability in its public disclosure and offered credit only to TheCharlatan, even though researcher Kaspar Etter of Shift Cryptosecurity allegedly also contributed.

In response to those allegations, Coinkite CEO Rodolfo Novak told Bitcoin Magazine that “[Shift Cryptosecurity] seemed to have coordinated their not-so-great news about discontinuing their previous BitBox PWNd model, didn’t check with us to confirm bounty details, exaggerated a vulnerability, and caused unnecessary panic on the first day of release. In my view, they acted in bad faith. The fact remains that this kind of research is being funded by the competition and not independent experts reveals a lot about their real intentions. Ultimately, we’ve been in this space for many years and have successfully worked with numerous security researchers.”

In January 2019, hardware wallet researcher LazyNinja also found an issue with the PIN input of the Coldcard Mk2: Due to a firmware flaw, hackers could brute force the PIN by entering a new guess every 5 to 15 seconds. In his hacking session, he conducted a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack through an external device which was used for decoding. The end result is that he was able to access the Coldcard Mk2 after multiple attempts at guessing the PIN. Consequently, Coinkite announced a software update to fix the issue, while also recommending users create a long PIN.

On the Coinkite blog, every prominent security issue and fix seems to have been disclosed and explained. This is great news for security enthusiasts who feel permanently skeptical about the devices that they’re using, and it’s a factor which helps build the reputation of Coldcard as a brand. 

However, it’s worth noting again that no hardware wallet has proven to be perfect in terms of security, and sooner or later new vulnerabilities will be found. Just keep your device in a safe place and treat it like you would a paper wallet: Nobody can ever touch it or take a good look at it.

2. Secure Chip

BitBox02, Coldcard Mk3 and Ledger Nano X

When Ledger launched the Nano S, a new trend in hardware wallet security was introduced: Making use of a secure chip (in this particular case, the ST31H320) as a way of cryptographically keeping sensitive information away from hackers. Ledger has replicated the model with the Nano X by upgrading the chip to a ST33J2M0 and improving on the microcontroller, while other manufacturers such as Shift Cryptosecurity and Coinkite have been inspired to design similar devices.

Both the BitBox02 and the Coldcard Mk3 use the ATECC608A secure chip. Unlike Ledger, which keeps some of its code concealed from the public eye, the two devices follow the open-source philosophy that Trezor champions (and also makes use of some of Trezor’s software breakthroughs). The idea of taking the best of both worlds from market pioneers Trezor and Ledger seems to work very well, as the Coldcard and BitBox are enjoying a surge in popularity. 

Up to this point, no secure chip has been hacked. Nonetheless, since the component communicates with the other parts of the hardware wallet (such as the connection port and microcontroller), creative ways have been found to circumvent the advanced security by sending it incorrect instructions (such as changing the addresses where funds get sent). The two-chip design has worked really well, but manufacturers are still figuring out how to create a physically tamper-proof hardware wallet.

Trezor Model T and KeepKey

The two devices from this test that don’t have a secure chip are the Trezor Model T and the KeepKey. Since the latter is a redesigned clone of the former, it makes a lot of sense for them to have similarities in the parts soldered onto the mainboard. 

Does Trezor really need a secure chip to keep up with the competition? Well, the company is generally perceived as the best and most honest hardware wallet manufacturer when it comes to fixing vulnerabilities and releasing patches. It has done so for years, established a very transparent bounty system and it has been quick to respond to and take care of issues. Consequently, its users are more drawn to the quick fixes, extensive third-party support and customer service. Even when their devices got hacked, the Trezor developers have been able to find ways to maintain trust with their clients.

In the case of the KeepKey, it’s the oldest device in this test and definitely requires an update in order to acquire unique features of its own. Adding a secure chip or integrating full node and Wasabi connectivity are just a few ways in which ShapeShift’s product can become truly competitive, spec-wise. 

3. Multisig Difficulty

Coldcard Mk3 and Trezor Model T

Only two of the five devices presented in this test are recommended for multisig setups: the Coldcard Mk3 (which can perform the task on-device through a simple interface) and the Trezor Model T (which has the best optimization for multisig).

KeepKey, Ledger Nano X and BitBox02

Rashid encountered issues in his 2018 test in which he tried to create multisig setups via Electrum on KeepKey and Ledger devices. The Ledger Nano S (the X wasn’t launched at the time) didn’t verify change outputs, nor did it display fees (a major risk against hackers who know how to exploit this design issue and steal your bitcoin), while the BitBox crashed frequently in the interface due to poor software optimization.

It’s very unlikely that the two manufacturers will work on the issue any time soon, as neither of them advertises multisig compatibility in the technical specifications of their products and their focus seems to be on casual users who require good security. 

“There is such a long road until multisig becomes doable by nonexperts,” as Shift Cryptosecurity co-founder and president Jonas Schnelli explained during episode 104 of Stephan Livera’s podcast. “It’s extremely complicated to do a setup even with the best user-centric application, including Electrum. It’s still very hard to set it up correctly and it’s so easy to lose coins. Which makes me think, maybe giving users an option to do multisig can be more harmful than beneficial. For sure, we’re working on multisig solutions, but it’s still immature on the concept level and we want to ship users something that’s really easy to use and safe against their own mistakes. And this might take some time.”

The KeepKey, Ledger and BitBox devices are all aimed at less-experienced users who enjoy comprehensive graphic interfaces and use features that they can easily understand. Given the complexity of multisigs and the likelihood of newbies making stupid mistakes, it’s unlikely for the companies to direct their manpower toward multisig development — especially when the hardware wallet industry is still new and there are still a lot of more basic issues to fix.

In contrast, Coinkite advertises on-device and air-gapped multisig setups for advanced users and doesn’t seem to shy away from adding lots of power-user features (including a recommendation to roll a dice 99 times and input the result for maximum randomization of the seed phrase).

As the oldest player in the game and the bona fide standard for hardware wallets, the Trezor Model T benefits from a lot of software development and third-party integrations. Therefore, it’s no wonder that Electrum multisigs work best with Trezor devices, and this can also be considered a security compensation that makes up for the lack of a secure element. This is yet another field where the first-mover advantage matters.

4. Bitcoin Only

Only three manufacturers included in this test have Bitcoin-only versions of their hardware wallet: Trezor, Shift Cryptosecurity and Coinkite. Among them, only the Coldcard Mk3 is 100 percent bitcoin-oriented with no altcoin-friendly alternative.

Though these versions may seem gimmicky and designed to serve an elitist niche of Bitcoin maximalists, they also fulfill a security purpose: By only including one supported cryptocurrency, the attack surface is lowered. 

Also, allocating all of the time and energy on Bitcoin development may help accelerate innovation. For instance, the Coldcard Mk3 is the first hardware wallet to make use of partially signed bitcoin transactions. This allows the device to function without ever being connected to a computer, which is a major security breakthrough.

5. Open-Source Software

The “Don’t trust, verify” cypherpunk philosophy has become synonymous with the Bitcoin culture, and it’s very difficult to maintain a good reputation in the space without making your code auditable in a public repository. Since Bitcoin is an open and public protocol whose design can be consulted and scrutinized by anyone, the general expectation is that every related project is accountable by the same standards.

Thankfully, four of the five hardware wallets reviewed in this article are entirely open-source and every line of their codes can be audited. The only exception is Ledger, whose secure element chip design is powered by blackbox software. Otherwise, about 90 percent of Ledger’s software is available in its GitHub repository. 

As a response to Ledger’s opaqueness, Shift Cryptosecurity and Coinkite have integrated the secure chip design while also open-sourcing the entire code. Conversely, Trezor has always been open-source and its approach to software may be a reason why its competitors exist and get better after each update.

6. Bech32 Support

Bech32 is the address format specified in BIP 173. It’s the standard for native SegWit addresses, and it improves on the checksum algorithm for better speeds and error correction. Most importantly, addresses that begin with the “bc1” prefix make transaction outputs smaller and, therefore, reduce fees and the amount of block size they occupy, while also bringing compatibility with Wasabi wallet for CoinJoins. Therefore, it’s a matter of reducing costs and increasing privacy.

If connected to a third-party client like Electrum, all hardware wallets presented in this test are compatible with the bech32 address format. However, only the Ledger Nano X and the BitBox02 get shipped with software which allows users to send and receive bitcoin using this standard. With its basic user interface, the Trezor’s Model T is only able to send to bc1 addresses but not receive from them. In order to extend the features, the wallet is compatible with Electrum, Wasabi, Mycelium and lots of other third-party clients that provide advanced features.

Interestingly, the KeepKey Client app seems to have some of the same issues as the Trezor — it can only send to bc1 addresses. As pointed out by redditor De_Wilde_Weldoener, ShapeShift’s hardware wallet works very well with Mycelium.

As the only hardware wallet in this test which is designed for power users and doesn’t have a computer interface of its own, Coldcard works just fine with Electrum, Mycelium and Wasabi.

7. Bug Bounty Program

A good bug bounty program is a security insurance in itself. If hardware wallet manufacturers incentivize security researchers to spend time in order to audit their designs and code, then it’s likely that ethical hackers will always be ahead of malevolent actors and development will flourish.

Trezor

In this regard, Trezor leads the pack with the clearest and most transparent system which features a timeline of issue reporting with links to the code that fixed them. Also, there is a leaderboard for the most active security helpers and a promise that contributions get rewarded in bitcoin. As previously mentioned, as the industry’s pioneering company, Trezor lifts the entire market with its breakthroughs and manages to keep its customers thanks to its transparent and honest approach.

Ledger

Ledger is not as clear in regards to the contributions of its bounty program participants, and its “Wall of Fame” only includes three names (in comparison, Trezor has ten contributors on its leaderboard). The French company is more formal in explaining what kind of submissions are eligible for analysis and how whitehat hackers should proceed. The lack of credit being attributed to those who identify issues is yet another reminder that Ledger operates with a greater amount of secrecy than its competitors. Nonetheless, it’s clearly mentioned that its rewards get paid in bitcoin and the amounts depend on the perceived impact of the issue and the completeness of the solutions.

KeepKey

KeepKey is also vague in regards to its bug bounty program and doesn’t list a dedicated page for one on its website. However, a 2018 blog post revealed that rewards for responsible disclosure have been given to security researchers, and those who find issues should contact the security team. 

Perhaps the technical similarities with the Trezor enables fixes to be compatible on both devices, but this fact is not clarified on the KeepKey website. Overall, it’s good that the company pays for disclosures, but it’s worrying that its bounty program is not featured on the website. Sometimes an email address is not enough to incentivize ethical hackers.

BitBox02

Shift Cryptosecurity’s bug bounty policy is very similar in regards to terms and conditions with the one listed by Ledger. It also has a public “Hall of Thanks” honoring those who have identified security issues.

As the new hardware wallet becomes more popular and receives more attention from security researchers, it’s very likely that the page will get filled with names and issues. It will definitely be interesting to see if Shift Cryptosecurity uses the same timeline method that Trezor perfected, so that disclosures are complete in its declarations and documentation.

Coldcard Mk3

Last but not least, Coinkite doesn’t seem to have a dedicated page for a bounty program that’s meant to improve the Coldcard. However, security expert TheCharlatan described in a blog post a scenario where Coinkite responded very quickly and fixed an issue in a timely manner. What the ethical hacker didn’t appreciate was the reward, which consisted of two Coldcard wallets and a mug. 

Novak told Bitcoin Magazine that these claims have been blown out of proportion for public relations reasons and that the preferred approach for the Coldcard is to “pay researchers, not the competition.”

Editor’s note, November 25, 2019: Since publication of this article, Coinkite has provided more details about its bounty program. The information clarifies the eligibility conditions for valid submissions and details about competitors finding vulnerabilities in the Coldcard wallet. Furthermore, a “Bugmug” has been established as a prize for bounty reward winners.

On the website for its Donjon security research project, Ledger has published a complete timeline of vulnerability issues for its devices. The interface was inspired by the Qubes Security Bulletin and includes links to details about each security patch applied.

8. Price

When deciding which hardware wallet you should buy in order to satisfy your expectations for security and privacy, it’s important to take into account the price. Thankfully, competition has driven down the prices and the Ledger Nano X, the BitBox02 and the Coldcard Mk3 can be bought for roughly the same price ($109 to $120, plus shipping).

At $164, the Trezor Model T is the most expensive hardware wallet featured in this review. Conversely, the KeepKey can be bought for only $49 — and the price is reduced to $10 for users who sign up for ShapeShift’s other services (a decision that isn’t recommended for privacy-cautious users but can be great for active traders).

All in all, it’s interesting to observe that there is no price gap between the most user-friendly hardware wallet and the power-user solution. At this point, there is no premium for any type of service or feature, as all manufacturers try to stay competitive and attract a larger number of customers. 

If the same test is repeated in a few years and the popularity of Bitcoin keeps on growing at the current pace, it’s going to be interesting to see which companies are still around and how many of them stuck to their cypherpunk philosophy in times when demand increased exponentially. But, at this point, there is no “wrong” choice among these five options and every hardware wallet in this review brings its own pros and cons to suit certain types of users.

This post Bitcoin Wallet Reviews: What’s the Best Hardware Wallet on the Market? Part 3 first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Vlad Costea.

In this video review, Bitcoin Magazine tests the Cryptotag Zeus, a 100-percent titanium, recovery seed storage device. 

The Zeus allows users to make a virtually indestructible, seed-phrase backup plaque in less than five minutes. Essentially, they engrave a series of numbers that correspond to a 12- or 24-word seed phrase provided by their hardware or software wallet onto a titanium surface. 

How Do You Use It? 

When a user sets up a bitcoin wallet, a set of 12 or 24 words is provided, known as a recovery seed, for the user to write down in a safe place in case they lose access to their wallet. 

Unlike the earlier version of the Cryptotag, which required you to hammer in each letter of each word in your seed phrase, the Zeus uses a list of numbers that correspond to the BIP 39 open-source list of seed words. Inscribing these numbers into the titanium plate is easier than writing out full words.

Each of the 2,048 words included in BIP 39 corresponds to a four-digit number, per Cryptotag’s system for the Zeus. For example, the word “abandon” corresponds with the number 0001. Once the words are converted into their corresponding numbers, a center punch tool is used to punch in each digit into the titanium Zeus plate.

Cryptotag provides a sheet of paper to write down the conversion numbers for your 12 or 24 unique words so that you can have the numbers ready to go before you need to punch them in. It also provides a set of matches with the Zeus, so you can burn this sheet once the information is embedded into the plate and reduce another point of failure. 

Once your numbers have been punched into the two, 6 mm-thick titanium plates, the setup of the Cryptotag Zeus is complete. 

Looks and Design

The Zeus comes in a really neatly packaged, small, white box that you’ll see in the review video above. The messaging on the outside — “This is for the HODLers” — makes you feel like an individual, while also part of a much bigger movement. The branding of the entire product is minimalistic, which is nice and translates well to set up for the Zeus. 

As a seed-phrase storage device, the Zeus is an ideal choice for a Bitcoin beginner or expert who has only one hardware wallet. 

The Zeus is available for $99 USD on Cryptotag’s website. 

This is an editorial hardware review by Bitcoin Magazine. All opinions expressed are the writer’s own without express approval or input from the manufacturer.

This post Video Review: Cryptotag Zeus first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Michael Taiberg.