4 ms·
> Does it matter? Yes, as this seems to be an initial marketing attempt by Kyle Spearrin (the creator of Bitwarden) to unveil his own LastPass alternative whil
by msimpson 10y ago
> Does it matter?
Yes, as this seems to be an initial marketing attempt by Kyle Spearrin (the creator of Bitwarden) to unveil his own LastPass alternative while simultaneous making LastPass seem untrustworthy. Regardless of whether the issue detailed in this article is true, the following timeline cannot be ignored:
1. Bitwarden.com was registered on Nov. 16, 2015
2. The initial commit to bitwarden/core was on Dec. 8, 2015
3. Release v1.3.0 of Bitwarden is issued on Jan 16, 2017
4. A quick fix release v1.3.1 is issued on Jan 17, 2017
5. Bitwarden.com gains an SSL certificate on Jan. 17, 2017
6. This article arrives touting an unknown LastPass alternative on Jan. 18, 2017
Suspicious? I am. Especially since Kyle is the only contributor to the project, as well.
- mikeash 10y agoI don't see how any of that makes it matter. Given that timeline, what difference does it make whether 6 is a coincidence or written by Mr. Spearrin?
- mhurron 10y agoIt matters because now in reality there needs to be an unaffiliated third party to confirm the issue as the current reporter may be an unreliable source.
- mikeash 10y agoDon't you need that anyway?
- mhurron 10y agoFor others (LastPass for instance) to take action on it, yes. For anyone reading this, because we could be looking at an unreliable source, they might as well treat it as if they never read it at all.
- mikeash 10y agoIt's either this guy or it's somebody else whose identity we don't know. It's an unreliable source either way.
- pvg 10y agoThis seems pretty thin, as evidence. It is a little bit odd that the author comments on HN about Bitwarden referring to himself in the third person and sometimes not disclosing affiliation when his product is being discussed. But he's also on this thread so we can just ask him.