Hi Leo, > Regarding feedback to the report: Why did the BlueWallet get this special > mention? On WalletScrutiny.com, every wallet that is "not verifiable" has such > a GitHub issue, linked to from the website.
One of the many responsibilities of writing these reports involves keeping a watchful eye on social media throughout the month for a number of trends and keywords. I can't say for certain, but I suspect I came across the BlueWallet issue because it was linked on there. In other words, any asymmetry in focus on BlueWallet was not intentional, and merely an artefact of how I write them. I circulate these posts a number of days in advance of publication, so feel free to clarify any imbalance you see in future drafts — I must rely on others to correct any potential focusing as I cannot perform academic-level due diligence on all references I come across. > Thanks for featuring WalletScrutiny! My original mail to the list had not > yielded feedback, so I was a bit surprised :D I can't speak for anyone else of course but I've been quite busy with other stuff so your mail kept being pushed down my mental stack. I am sure that another contributors members will be able to provide some feedback. Regards, -- o ⬋ ⬊ Chris Lamb o o reproducible-builds.org 💠 ⬊ ⬋ o