> but to be clear, it's nowhere near a revision. That’s how the retroactive victim blaming always works: It is retroactively determined that there were signs,

> but to be clear, it's nowhere near a revision. That’s how the retroactive victim blaming always works: It is retroactively determined that there were signs, which turns into victim blaming anyone who didn’t predict that those signs would lead to loss of their coins. You are doing it. > also as far as I care the btc community members who chose to go with one of the few hardware wallets that wasn't open source were not doing due their diligence. I can’t tell if you’re confused about the details of this story or if you’re trying to make a point that isn’t landing. You may want to read up on the open source status of the wallet before doing the whole victim blaming song and dance.