trezord-go VS brave-core

I don't know the default behavior of Trezor's software, especially on Mac, however a quick look at their github and the fact that its listening on port 21325 appears normal.

Trezor Bridge Changelog

ChromeOS connectivity is done through WebUSB. WebUSB works on the Trezor web-wallet, but not on MetaMask. MetaMask uses Trezor-Connect which perform xhr requests to Trezor-Bridge

I did install the bridge 1. From the AUR repository (trezord-go, trezord-git) however only first one seems to be maintained. 2. From source code following the official github and this guide on how to install trezor using arch.

Best I can think of so far. Would be nice to have the issue written to connect or bridge

Maybe see https://github.com/trezor/trezord-go if you can grad an old version of trezor bridge from the time you last used your trezor and try to connect your trezor to electrum. Maybe you have to clone the github and revert to an old branch and compile yourself.

Here it says > Bridge needs to see the Origin so it enables Trezor only on selected sites, not all of them. https://github.com/trezor/trezord-go/issues/214

Unrelated but about Brave and interesting to me: I recently found myself having a large upstream project that I need to maintain some custom patches for, and there's a need for deeper customizations and I worry that my rudimentary system of applying .patch files will turn into an unmaintainable nightmare of merge conflicts after every rebase. I was thinking about possible solutions, and it occurred to me that Brave being Chromium-based must have this same challenge but an order of magnitude more difficult, so I looked for their code to see how they solved this issue.

It's pretty interesting! They do basically the same thing for core Chromium, applying a (big) set of patches[1].

Incidentally, I'd be interested to hear any ideas/approaches to this problem. I'm guessing if there was something clearly better, Brave would be doing it, but it seems like there should be a better way even if I can't think of one.

[1] https://github.com/brave/brave-core/tree/master/patches

https://github.com/brave/brave-core/pull/13737

(Incidentally, that PR number is not quite elite. :)

I disagree that it's lip service Brave has a ton of engine level privacy patches https://github.com/brave/brave-core/tree/master/patches

To my understanding you can't match it with just js extensions.

Only firefox on the highest security mode comes close I think?

Or ungoogled chromium? (brave has most of their patches IIRC)

Are there other options that have this number of patches?

Chromium is not 100% Google's forever and always, though they do currently lead the way, and with the most used/backed fork.

https://github.com/brave/brave-core/pull/19476

They have much more changes than just compile flags. Here's the repo where they maintain their patch set: https://github.com/brave/brave-core/tree/master/patches

Brave Private Ads toggle controls just Push Notification ads at this time. So, if you are still seeing Push Notification ads, that would be incorrect. However, it's normal to still see New Tab Page image ads, and/or other ad formats. We are introducing a new UI that helps you better toggle on/off specific ad units, and removing the "Brave Private Ads" toggle that can be confusing: https://github.com/brave/brave-core/pull/18938

Yes, being fixed. Github at https://github.com/brave/brave-core/pull/18922