My assumption is that the wallet regeneration algorithm from the seeds should be known only to Trezor for Trezor's devices. I don't know if there's a standard for this seed -> wallet transformation tho.
The real issue is that there is no free market, governments keep interfering in them and creating imbalance with the intention to remove imbalance.
I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand the actual issue here. Even if it was a legit application and not trying to fake it, the action the guy undertook should never take place on a mobile device. That is not Apple's fault to guard against such basics of someone else product.
This check could have passed all those checks. And there is nothing illegit about it. Sharing recovery keys like that is just stupidity of the first order. That is not Apple's or any other companies fault. The product that he uses clearly states that you shouldn't do that. Heck you should store it in parts off-site and well protected. Don't let anyone have the full seed.
Let's think of the most logical and simplistic scenario; if someone types in the recovery seed in an app or online portal. They don't have to there and then unlock it and gain access. They just need to capture and enter those recovery seed phrases in their own trezor device or any other such device...They don't cost much, you can buy them from Amazon. Heck it is a good idea to have a few anyway...
Exactly. You'd think after taking 30% and promoting the safety of the App Store that Apple would own up to their share of the blame here. But nope.
In your haste to feel disappointed do you actually understand and realise what is happening in this scenario? And when you do, do you still find it disappointing that Apple didn't block this?
Let’s say it was really the car manufacturers fault. Now two cases: You left your wallet with $100 in the car and it’s gone. Should the manufacturer pay? Or you left a case with $600,000 of diamonds in your car and it’s gone. Should the car maker pay? It’s kind of reasonable to trust your car locks to protect your $100 wallet, but not to trust them to protect $600,000 worth of stuff.
So are you suggesting if Apple didn't charge 30% fees, it would be okay, fine and dandy if there were scam apps in the app store? That is the only way to interpret the above.
I won’t go into a debate of english words’ meanings, it’s not my language and I would be at a disadvantage.
The app didn't do anything bad
Ok, let's play along. Say you use a password manager, should one be able to enter a recovery seed phrase in there? Or what about a text message? What about an email? To me this is as someone else put it eloquently before, it is about protecting the device and unknowing data capture and leakage, or about stealing the users data. This isn't really about preventing users from every possibly eventuality and stupidity. After all these are just ordinary readable strings of text. Even the manufacturer of the device involved tells the users not to do that...
This does prove that the AppStore is not the gateway of security that many claim it to be. That said, in the review team’s defends it’s hard to review something that changes after the fact - many companies use such remote configuration (like mine).
I think what this more proves, is that if someone wants to scam a person there is a way. Saying this proves that app store is not the "gateway of security that many claim" is part truth and part hyperbole. Because I never heard it claimed that 100% of all apps in the app store are free from: scamware, malware, spyware, trojanware, etc.
Indeed, and what seems to have happened here is that the app didn't include any of that. All it had to do was provide a text field input for a user to submit details they really shouldn't submit anywhere other than on their hardware device...
I’d consider it an absolute truth personally, because I often hear people talk about the App Store like it’s the bastion protecting us all from evil and giving the user other options would be far too risky, apparently. But I respect your point.
I don't think they do. I don't see how they can withhold or refund currencies they do not deal with. IMO those terms only apply to money that runs through their payment systems and APIs even though not explicitly stated. It seems obvious to me anyway. I don't see how they can verify any of this - and it's not like they'll reimburse in Bitcoin - even if they do.
That is why AAA video games are so much cheaper and have buckets loads of loot boxes...oh wait a minute that is the opposite of lower prices. This is the same BS argument used to justify not having socialized medicine here in the US.
The logic is akin to saying Ford has a monopoly on selling Ford cars and about as ridiculous. Meanwhile real monopolies like Cable companies get away with crap all the darn time.
