Discovery "Development Needs HW Wallets" (active)Back

Title: Development Needs HW Wallets
Owner: TheSin
Created: 2018-11-04
Proposal link: Not Linked

Description

Hardware Wallets

To complete and properly verify hardware wallets I'd like to request a few variants, so far all the work has been done blindly as I do not have or use HW wallets.  But I'd like to make sure what I"m releasing works and looks proper.

  • TREZOR Black - 69 EUR
  • TERZOR Model T - 149 EUR
  • Shipping - 22 EUR
  • Total - 240 EUR ~ 360 CAD
  • Ledger Nano S - 129.99 CAD
  • Ledger Blue - 359.99 CAD
  • Shipping - Free
  • Total - 490 CAD
  • Grand Total - 850 CAD ~ 0.1 BTC ~ 20000 TRC

Only one includes shipping so I'll have to add a bit more for shipping or I'll just cover it.  I know there are multiples of each, the icons and interactions of each differ so I want to make sure they all work and look as good as they can.

 


Show full description ...

Discussion

Submit comment
 
0 points, ~2 months ago
I did not see this go into proposal yet ?
I would like to donate The first 5000 TrC if that would somehow speed up this development
Reply
0 points, ~4 months ago
Things might have just gotten a little bit simpler, Trezor might be out sadly. https://github.com/trezor/trezor-common/issues/235 The only option I see is that I could mess around with making a custom firmware that replaces Bitcoin with Terracoin, but this isn't not a user friendly solution.
Reply
0 points, ~4 months ago
Okay the ticket with Trezor just was updated, maybe there is a solution yet. So maybe I split this discovery again, and just focus on Ledger for now, maybe an other one for Trezor separately in a bit.
Reply
0 points, ~4 months ago
Just updated the description, added totals and convertions, removed the miners I'll make a separate one for them at a later time. At this point I was thinking that maybe the proposal shoudl be for 5k for 4 payments, and I'd just pay to buy them a head of time since I dont' want to put things on hold for 4 months. Thoughts?
Reply
0 points, ~4 months ago
If you can front the costs now, then get them now and spread the proposal over as many payments as you're comfortable with. Hardware wallet support is a key differentiator for crypto newbies which will help attract new investors and community participants. And "old-hands" appreciate having somewhere truly secure to hodl their stash.

Being able to control MNs from hardware wallets will be another key differentiator for TRC.
Reply
0 points, ~4 months ago
I agree, this is something we can market too, I could let someone make a video to illustrate how this would work and we can market that feature of TRC, once we have it. Then if we market that, along with other features, and what we stand for, then new investors will get in, and other exchanges might accept us. I will try and list with some exchanges today, so then they will have all week to review it.
Reply
0 points, ~4 months ago
It’s two days left until the superblock and there is about 5000 Terracoin unallocated. If you create a proposal today, I think many of us masternode owners would support it, since this is obviously very important for the development of Terracoin. I would vote for sure.
Reply
0 points, ~4 months ago
Sadly it's too late, 3 days before superblock votes no longer count as the trigger is already created. But I would like to have it setup for the next superblock for sure, I'll try and come up with some numbers that would make sense, likely at these prices it would need to be multiple superblocks for both of them. That is why I thought one would be easiest to manage rather than funds from 2 and trying to manage them both.
Reply
0 points, ~4 months ago
I think we can't wait for two months to recover this money from dGov. And even if it was only one month it's too much time. The dev team has to have all they need when they need it. What if we organize ourselves to put our money together in these days in order to recover them later from dGov?
Reply
0 points, ~4 months ago
I think the development of TRC is one of the priorities for us, I suggest you should make your proposal ASAP. You have all my support.
Reply
0 points, ~4 months ago
My suggestion is that you setup a dev fund, then start to accumulate the coins for the fund every month. The fund should be managed in the similar manner as foundation fund or lawyer fund.
When this fund becomes big, you can buy equipments or even hire new developers.
Reply
0 points, ~4 months ago
This is a good idea moving forward for sure, but this is for a specific right now need(s), but maybe after this one we could start a smaller monthly fund for such a thing. Maybe 500 - 1000 TRC per SB in the future.
Reply
0 points, ~4 months ago
I personally think it would be best if this would be two separate proposals. One for the two Antminer S9j's and one for the hardware wallets.

The testnet proposal would cost $710, while the hardware wallet proposal would cost around $650. With the current price of TRC however, neither can get the required funds I think (since there is also the TRC team pay). So yes, you would have to wait until the price of TRC goes up a bit.

Of course, you can always choose to not sell the TRC at these low prices (which you are unlikely to do anyway) and pay out of your own pocket. That way you could post a proposal regardless of the TRC price now and just calculate the required TRC based on a higher TRC price (which might not make sense right now, but in the future, who knows....).

Could you tell us which of the two is more important to fund first (if it passes)?
Reply
0 points, ~4 months ago
okay no problem I'll post 2 proposals for this, both are equally important for progress in 2 directions. One if for new core client features and the other is to have better support for HW wallets which is a groing need, it'll also help me complete the Masternode Tool I have been working on that allows you to run a masternode from HW wallets and not have the keys on a local machine.

Dont' forget I could have it span over multiple superblocks to have it pay out too, also somethign we shoudl discuss cause sooner is better then later as all these things need to be ordered and take time. And I'm kinda on hold for both sides of these. I'm still working on 0.12.2.5 ATM and there is still lots of work to be done, but once it's done I will need a strong testnet to test it before release as I do NOT want to break 0.12.2.4 or cause an other split/fork. The last one was cause miners had different versions and we can not test that setup currently since we only have one very old and small miner. If we put one newer on on it it'll just over power the older one hence the need for 2 that are the same.
Reply