Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:00 pm

I've been a follower of yours on Twitter for a while. I really appreciate the work you're doing to improve privacy in the Bitcoin space.

I like hardware wallets, but it seems that users must take an extra step to achieve privacy with hardware wallets. Paper wallets can be good for privacy, but are less convenient and take a bit of effort to securely create.



What would you say is the best security/privacy combo? I wish hardware wallers were compatible with Bitcoin Core.

I'm also interested on your thoughts on the block size. I've seen you mention it a few times on Twitter, but don't remember seeing any straight forward thoughts.

Thanks a lot!I think Trezor has a pretty good user experience, particularly for intermediate users. It's cool that you can use it on web (mytrezor.com wallet) and Android (Mycelium).A hardware wallet that you could use with a full node would, indeed, be nice. Even better would be the option to hook your mobile thin client up with your hardware wallet which does all balance lookups and transaction broadcasts through a full node that you setup yourself at home or perhaps a cloud-based virtual machine. Maybe a hardware wallet company can team up with BitSeed to make that happen.I would like to see greater consideration of economic solutions to the block size issue. I concur with those who identify block size limits as a production quota, which is inherently a blunt tool that will cause problems.I'm not exactly sure what the solution is, but one approach I would like to see researched is to eliminate the block size limit altogether and to create a micropayment networks that offset the costs of running full nodes. Perhaps this approach could quell our fears about ever-decreasing full node counts and avoid a Bitcoin bread line.Some people who have written great stuff in this area include Peter R and Justus Ranvier