Connect with us

Uncategorized

You can build your own Trezor but here’s the price: DIY wallet engineer

An electronics design manager who made his own Trezor One has assessed the difficulty of building a DIY crypto wallet from scratch.

Published

on

An electronics design manager who made his own Trezor One has assessed the difficulty of building a DIY crypto wallet from scratch.

The open-source nature of many hardware cryptocurrency wallets allows one to build a do-it-yourself (DIY) wallet like Trezor from scratch, but it requires certain skills.

Florin Cocos, an electronics design manager from Romania, built his own DIY Trezor with the wallet’s open-source code in 2018, without having access to a “real” Trezor device.

On his YouTube channel, Voltlog, Cocos demonstrated the process of creating the DIY Trezor Model One, using electronics components purchased from distributors like Farnell. The engineer specifically used a Farnell microcontroller and a printed circuit board (PCB) ordered from a production house in China, extracted from a Gerber file available on Trezor’s GitHub.

“The parts can be purchased from any reputable distributor like Farnell, DigiKey, RS, Newark, TME. It really depends on your location, get them from your local distributor. You can get the OLED screen from AliExpress or eBay,” Cocos wrote on his Voltlog blog.

PCBs used by Voltlog for building a DIY Trezor wallet. Source: YouTube

Five years after releasing his DIY Trezor video, Cocos is still enthusiastic about his DIY crypto device. “I have used the device and I would always trust my DIY device over a marketplace-bought one,” the engineer told Cointelegraph in an interview on Sept. 19.

It took roughly 10 hours for Voltlog to set up the DIY Trezor

Trezor’s market availability wasn’t the main reason for Cocos to build the DIY wallet, though: the engineer was rather focused on spreading the word about open-source projects.

“Open-source designs are gaining more and more popularity and in my opinion, this is the future,” Cocos said, adding:

“You have full control over the security aspects and it's always fun to build something yourself. For me personally, the idea of making something useful, myself, contributes more than anything else to the decision to start such a project.”

The entire process of building and installing firmware on the DIY Trezor wallet took roughly 10 hours for Cocos, minus time spent on receiving the PCBs and other ordered components.

“It took me maybe two or three hours to evaluate the project and generate the necessary Gerber files for uploading to a PCB manufacturing service and ordering all of the required parts from known distributors like Mouser or Digikey,” the design manager said. After receiving the PCBs, it took him roughly five hours to assemble the PCB. flash it with firmware and get it running, Cocos noted.

Building hardware for the DIY Trezor was the easiest part, the engineer told Cointelegraph, adding that flashing the firmware and getting it to work with the application was “slightly more challenging.”

How difficult is it to build a DIY Trezor for an average user?

As the whole building process didn’t take too much time, one may think that creating a DIY Trezor might be not that difficult for an average user, but that’s not the case, at least according to Cocos.

According to the engineer, it’s “nearly impossible” to build such a project for the average user without any knowledge of electronics. “If 10 is the most difficult, then I would rate this a 10,” Cocos said while trying to estimate the difficulty of building a DIY Trezor for an average user.

He added that the process could be simplified but at the cost of significant security risks related to vulnerabilities in the supply chain and manufacturing.

“Things could be improved by creating a ‘makers pack’ for the project, with all of the required manufacturing files in their specific format and just uploading that to one of the PCB and PCBA prototyping services available online. However while at that stage it would be a difficulty level of roughly 3 on a scale of 1-10, you lose control over the supply chain and manufacturing step, so there is an added security risk,” the engineer stated.

Cocos suggested that efforts to build a DIY Trezor without proper knowledge could result in significant security risks, adding:

“I would not recommend building such a hardware wallet if you are not experienced with electronics and specifically with soldering small surface mount components. If that's the case, the result is likely just the magic smoke escaping or at best a brick that does nothing.”

Cocos — who described himself as an occasional user of cryptocurrency — holds a bachelor's in Electrical Engineering and has been designing and building electronics professionally for 10 years and as a hobby for more than 15 years. He believes that one doesn’t need to be an expert like him to build a DIY Trezor, but it does still require some expertise.

Related: Ledger announces U.S. PayPal integration, lets users buy crypto from within app

“Just one or two years of tinkering with electronics at a moderately fast pace, from a moderately technically skilled person should be enough to greatly increase the chances of success,” Cocos stated.

As previously reported, some cryptocurrency users have fallen victim to fake hardware wallets by buying the devices from other sources than the direct manufacturer or the official vendor. As such, hardware wallet makers like Ledger and Trezor have been always urging their customers to only buy hardware wallets from the official vendors.

As there are some regions where hardware wallets cannot be shipped due to issues like sanctions, companies like Trezor suggested that the devices’ open-source nature could be a solution. “Trezor is fully open-source, anyone can build their own using the schematics and bill of materials on Github,” Trezor’s Bitcoin analyst Josef Tetek told Cointelegraph.

Magazine: Big Questions: What’s with all the crypto deaths?

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Homes listed for sale in early June sell for $7,700 more

New Zillow research suggests the spring home shopping season may see a second wave this summer if mortgage rates fall
The post Homes listed for sale in…

Published

on

  • A Zillow analysis of 2023 home sales finds homes listed in the first two weeks of June sold for 2.3% more. 
  • The best time to list a home for sale is a month later than it was in 2019, likely driven by mortgage rates.
  • The best time to list can be as early as the second half of February in San Francisco, and as late as the first half of July in New York and Philadelphia. 

Spring home sellers looking to maximize their sale price may want to wait it out and list their home for sale in the first half of June. A new Zillow® analysis of 2023 sales found that homes listed in the first two weeks of June sold for 2.3% more, a $7,700 boost on a typical U.S. home.  

The best time to list consistently had been early May in the years leading up to the pandemic. The shift to June suggests mortgage rates are strongly influencing demand on top of the usual seasonality that brings buyers to the market in the spring. This home-shopping season is poised to follow a similar pattern as that in 2023, with the potential for a second wave if the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates midyear or later. 

The 2.3% sale price premium registered last June followed the first spring in more than 15 years with mortgage rates over 6% on a 30-year fixed-rate loan. The high rates put home buyers on the back foot, and as rates continued upward through May, they were still reassessing and less likely to bid boldly. In June, however, rates pulled back a little from 6.79% to 6.67%, which likely presented an opportunity for determined buyers heading into summer. More buyers understood their market position and could afford to transact, boosting competition and sale prices.

The old logic was that sellers could earn a premium by listing in late spring, when search activity hit its peak. Now, with persistently low inventory, mortgage rate fluctuations make their own seasonality. First-time home buyers who are on the edge of qualifying for a home loan may dip in and out of the market, depending on what’s happening with rates. It is almost certain the Federal Reserve will push back any interest-rate cuts to mid-2024 at the earliest. If mortgage rates follow, that could bring another surge of buyers later this year.

Mortgage rates have been impacting affordability and sale prices since they began rising rapidly two years ago. In 2022, sellers nationwide saw the highest sale premium when they listed their home in late March, right before rates barreled past 5% and continued climbing. 

Zillow’s research finds the best time to list can vary widely by metropolitan area. In 2023, it was as early as the second half of February in San Francisco, and as late as the first half of July in New York. Thirty of the top 35 largest metro areas saw for-sale listings command the highest sale prices between May and early July last year. 

Zillow also found a wide range in the sale price premiums associated with homes listed during those peak periods. At the hottest time of the year in San Jose, homes sold for 5.5% more, a $88,000 boost on a typical home. Meanwhile, homes in San Antonio sold for 1.9% more during that same time period.  

 

Metropolitan Area Best Time to List Price Premium Dollar Boost
United States First half of June 2.3% $7,700
New York, NY First half of July 2.4% $15,500
Los Angeles, CA First half of May 4.1% $39,300
Chicago, IL First half of June 2.8% $8,800
Dallas, TX First half of June 2.5% $9,200
Houston, TX Second half of April 2.0% $6,200
Washington, DC Second half of June 2.2% $12,700
Philadelphia, PA First half of July 2.4% $8,200
Miami, FL First half of June 2.3% $12,900
Atlanta, GA Second half of June 2.3% $8,700
Boston, MA Second half of May 3.5% $23,600
Phoenix, AZ First half of June 3.2% $14,700
San Francisco, CA Second half of February 4.2% $50,300
Riverside, CA First half of May 2.7% $15,600
Detroit, MI First half of July 3.3% $7,900
Seattle, WA First half of June 4.3% $31,500
Minneapolis, MN Second half of May 3.7% $13,400
San Diego, CA Second half of April 3.1% $29,600
Tampa, FL Second half of June 2.1% $8,000
Denver, CO Second half of May 2.9% $16,900
Baltimore, MD First half of July 2.2% $8,200
St. Louis, MO First half of June 2.9% $7,000
Orlando, FL First half of June 2.2% $8,700
Charlotte, NC Second half of May 3.0% $11,000
San Antonio, TX First half of June 1.9% $5,400
Portland, OR Second half of April 2.6% $14,300
Sacramento, CA First half of June 3.2% $17,900
Pittsburgh, PA Second half of June 2.3% $4,700
Cincinnati, OH Second half of April 2.7% $7,500
Austin, TX Second half of May 2.8% $12,600
Las Vegas, NV First half of June 3.4% $14,600
Kansas City, MO Second half of May 2.5% $7,300
Columbus, OH Second half of June 3.3% $10,400
Indianapolis, IN First half of July 3.0% $8,100
Cleveland, OH First half of July  3.4% $7,400
San Jose, CA First half of June 5.5% $88,400

 

The post Homes listed for sale in early June sell for $7,700 more appeared first on Zillow Research.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending