docs: record design-review note (assurance bar before promotion)

Outside review flagged BitLogin as highest-upside/highest-risk. Record the
guidance: external cryptographic review as a gate before 'use for real'
positioning; keep copy off impossibility claims; hold the passphrase-entropy
and Argon2id/AES-GCM choices.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BXQCvJPA6sVSQ5j8uBd9bB
This commit is contained in:
thePR0M3TH3ANandClaude Opus 4.8 committed 2026-08-11 23:28:59 -04:00
1 parent b8b19599e0
commit 522d81ec56
1 file changed
+19
+19
View File
@@ -434,3 +434,22 @@ how much they cost.
(`BitLoginLoginEventDetail` etc. + `BitLoginEventMap`) in `src/events.ts`.
Verified with a consumer conformance typecheck; README "TypeScript" section
added.
## Design review — external critique (2026-08-11)
From an outside review of the BitBlocks stack. BitLogin was called the highest
upside AND highest risk in the stack.
- **[agree] Highest assurance bar.** A BitLogin failure is identity compromise,
not "the feed looked weird." Keep promotion conservative and the
alpha/unaudited labeling prominent until an outside cryptographic/security
review. Treat an external audit as a **gate** before any "use this for real"
positioning — this is the one block where marketing must trail assurance.
- **[agree] No impossibility claims in copy.** Relay retention is best-effort;
our own docs already say to keep the recovery export. Keep the site's language
on "portable / no single operator controls," never "cannot be deleted." (See
the umbrella claim-precision note.)
- The choices the review praised — high-entropy passphrase (not raw human
passwords), Argon2id + AES-256-GCM, `window.nostr` compatibility so Nostr
"disappears into the background" — are the right ones. Hold that line; don't
soften the passphrase-entropy stance for UX.