Dice doc #403
Dice doc #403
Conversation
New dice_verification documentation using new screenshots and including Sparrow, Ian Coleman BIP39 tool and Seed Tool for verification.
not needed
I did not see/understand how to verify the change addresses. This adds this now.
added Sparrow zpub comparison
|
Nice work @jahangir13! After a first pass review, really nice textual corrections and additions, and updates of images. This deserves fresh eyes and another pass, I will get back to this soon. |
|
Great work @jahangir13 ! |
- new introduction - changes from review comments - more consistent headings compared to other .md documents - more spacing between the topics - no use of the lists (1., 2., 3.) anymore to allow more spacing here - add a chapter with example values for doing the same tutorial with 50 dice rolls / 12 words seed - added Sparrow Wallet URL - entered conclusion at the end
|
So I've had another look based on the comments. Thanks for these! |
corrected to textual errors
- fixed some typos / unconsistencies
- proof --> prove
- Seedsigner --> SeedSigner
|
Instead of just running through the changes, I've read top to bottom (I'll do so again looking for typos/word suggestions) to follow the flow of how a user would verify. This is very thorough, a great exercise for building confidence in seedsigner, in your wallet, in other related tools... and especially that user knows how to use them. For dice values, I also verified against Keith's pr #404 and results were as expected/documented. |
- suggest: "which fits to" becomes "supported by" - "The wallets settings screen" becomes "The wallet's settings screen" - suggest: added comma like: "To verify the change addresses, change..." (2 times)
- fix for the strange wrapping ( (4): )
|
Very nice work.
ACK |
- lowercase for fingerprints, zpubs and addresses in the conclusion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have suggested some grammar changes in this review. I am not that familiar with how this appears to you all once submitted, as it is very different to the MS Word / Google Docs track changes style with which I am more familiar.
So @jahangir13 , please let me know how these suggestions appear for you - I expect they do not function like the "Accept changes" feature of MS Word , but we can try these few suggestions initially.
|
Where I "thumbs-up"ed Marc's comments, it's because I agree that they are improvements. ...but I'm still very impressed with your English @jahangir13! At this Friday's meeting, I hope that we can address some of these documentation changes as candidates ready for merge/release. Also, how these might be merged w/ Keith's pr-404 which allows cli access to seedsigner's dice-rolls mnemonic generation. |
- Marc's review changes
Hm, the more I work on this, I think that there is more to be verified. Not sure how to combine all of that together to reduce redundancy. E.g. verify calculation of the 13th/24th words...verify BIP85 account address derivation...seed via camera will maybe not be possible. |
|
Just my 2c. If someone wants quick answers, they'll check out a video. If they want in-depth, then as much as they can read, even if partially redundant, is a resource worth having. None of these docs make it into the seedsigner-os images that are released; we are not limited in how thorough our docs can be. This is good progress, good work. It's definitely MUCH better than leaving old docs with old interface-screens that would confuse readers, or lead them not to read it at all. |
|
Some aspects:
In the end after entering the entropy details or seed words into the tools, the verification is often the same. Not sure about a good flow here. To be honest..using the Github Wiki might be a better approach than having single .md files in a Docs directory. The Wiki could be ordered/organized for topics and sub-topics, I guess existing links to already available docs could just be linked there. So the people do not need to search for topics in single files. Maybe something for the future^^ |
|
Why not. You have a point that more can be verified at the same time. The doc is about mnemonic_generation and that fits much more than simply dice rolls. I agree that whatever can be checked at the same time might be documented. These documents serve marketing for our project, building trust and community, and at the same time they beg our users to be verifiers that the project is worth trusting... once verified. However, it doesn't all need to be there before merge. Can always issue a new pr for additional changes. What is there needs to be verified and ACKed by others, so that "perfect" does not delay "considerably better than we have now" -- which you've already accomplished. |
|
Hi, I should have time tomorrow afternoon (PST) to complete the requested review 👍 |
|
ACK reviewed, great work! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ack! The most recent changes are great. The document reads really well now from top to bottom! ! Great work @jahangir13
Marc.
|
@jahangir13 - please contact me at [email protected] |
My first Pull Request ever^^
New documentation for the dice_verification.md.