FOR NEWBIES, wallets to choose from and analysis by Veriphi

[Wind_FURY]

I'm wondering why cold wallets aren't recommended. And there isn't Atomic wallet in this list.

Read the all the information posted in the spreadsheet. It's not the hardware wallet that isn't recommended.

Plus, AVOID Exodus, and all other wallets that doesn't let you control the fees. They aren't good to the network.

https://support.exodus.io/article/69-how-does-exodus-calculate-fees

[1714626619]

1714626619

[1714626619]

1714626619

[1714626619]

1714626619

[1714626619]

1714626619

[1714626619]

1714626619

[1714626619]

1714626619

[bob123]

Looking at the table.. a lot seems to be wrong and/or weird.

Some things picked:

• Wallet is API, SPV or a Node?
  What the hell is an "API" wallet? Additionally, every wallet is a Node. What this should say is "full node".
  
  
• Is the Backend Open-Source?
  No one can verify whether the open-source code actually is used. So that is quite pointless IMO when talking about the reputation of a wallet/backend.
  
  
• Other BTC Features: Electrum "No"
  Since CPFP is mentioned in other wallets, electrum does offer CPFP. Same goes for Wasabi. Also, you have added "Payjoin" to BTCPay, but no CoinJoin to Wasabi. This table is extremely inconsistent.
  
  
• Fee Selection
  Why does BTPay have "full" and everything just "Yes" ?
  
  
• "Bitcoin Unit of Account"
  Really?
  
  
• Replace by Fee
  Wasabi's entry is wrong. It should be "yes" instead of "no".
  
  

My conclusion would be that the table is so inconsistent and full of wrong information that it would be easier to delete it and start again with more useful information and a proper formatting.
It really is not worth showing a newbie.

[Wind_FURY]

Looking at the table.. a lot seems to be wrong and/or weird.

Some things picked:

• Wallet is API, SPV or a Node?
  What the hell is an "API" wallet? Additionally, every wallet is a Node. What this should say is "full node".
  
  

No, SPV/light-wallets are not actually part of the network, and are therefore, NOT nodes. They merely connect to a node. You're nit-picking, but I will ask Veriphi to change it, and avoid further confusion.

[/li]
[li]Is the Backend Open-Source?
No one can verify whether the open-source code actually is used. So that is quite pointless IMO when talking about the reputation of a wallet/backend.

Then you believe Exodus is as bad as Electrum in this list?

[/li]
[li]Other BTC Features: Electrum "No"
Since CPFP is mentioned in other wallets, electrum does offer CPFP. Same goes for Wasabi. Also, you have added "Payjoin" to BTCPay, but no CoinJoin to Wasabi. This table is extremely inconsistent.

[/li]
[li]Fee Selection
Why does BTPay have "full" and everything just "Yes" ?

I will show Veriphi.

[/li]
[li]"Bitcoin Unit of Account"
Really?

Why not, it's minor.

[/li]
[li]Replace by Fee
Wasabi's entry is wrong. It should be "yes" instead of "no".

[/li]
[/list]

I'll show Veriphi.

My conclusion would be that the table is so inconsistent and full of wrong information that it would be easier to delete it and start again with more useful information and a proper formatting.
It really is not worth showing a newbie.

It's not that very inconsistent, it did enough to guide newbies, which wallets are the open source/most secure/safest.

[pooya87]

• Wallet is API, SPV or a Node?
  What the hell is an "API" wallet? Additionally, every wallet is a Node. What this should say is "full node".
  

No, SPV/light-wallets are not actually part of the network, and are therefore, NOT nodes. They merely connect to a node. You're nit-picking, but I will ask Veriphi to change it, and avoid further confusion.

if we want to nitpick then we should split these things into different layers. wallet layer is not categorized like this. wallet is only responsible for creating and holding private key, generating addresses from these keys and signing transactions.
how the transaction outputs are verified and are send to the wallet layer depends on another layer which defines whether it is a "full node" or not. and we also have a very strict definition there too. for example none of the old bitcoin core versions can be considered full node anymore because they no longer verify "everything" (can't see or understand witnesses).

in other words there is no difference in nature of the "wallet" layer between electrum and bitcoin core, the difference is only in details and the other layers.[/list]

[bob123]

Then you believe Exodus is as bad as Electrum in this list?

Depending on what we are talking about.
Regarding security, no. Exodus is a horrible wallet.

Regarding privacy, yes. They are both shit regarding privacy. Both send all addresses, transactions and balances to a server who can link all your BTC transactions to your IP and your geo location.

Why not, it's minor.

There are no "accounts" in bitcoin.
This is a huge flaw in your mindset.

If this is intended for newbies, you are already teaching them a horrible behavior.

It's not that very inconsistent, it did enough to guide newbies, which wallets are the open source/most secure/safest.

It is extremely inconsistent.
I just picked a few wrong things i saw. There are way more there which i did not mention.

This table shouldn't be used to guide newbies at all. IMO it is worthless.

[Wind_FURY]

Then you believe Exodus is as bad as Electrum in this list?

Depending on what we are talking about.
Regarding security, no. Exodus is a horrible wallet.

Regarding privacy, yes. They are both shit regarding privacy. Both send all addresses, transactions and balances to a server who can link all your BTC transactions to your IP and your geo location.

It's merely Veriphi's comparison between different wallets, and you have the freedom to object.

Why not, it's minor.

There are no "accounts" in bitcoin.
This is a huge flaw in your mindset.

If this is intended for newbies, you are already teaching them a horrible behavior.

I'm confused, what? I believe Veriphi said "BTC as unit of account", not actual accounts. A unit of account is "one of the functions of money" for wallets merely to measure value.

In some wallets in the list, "Bitcoin used as Unit of Account" is a "yes".

It's not that very inconsistent, it did enough to guide newbies, which wallets are the open source/most secure/safest.

It is extremely inconsistent.
I just picked a few wrong things i saw. There are way more there which i did not mention.

This table shouldn't be used to guide newbies at all. IMO it is worthless.

You disagree with the recommended wallets in the list?

[DaveF]

Link to a post I made back in November 2019: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5205304

Basically saying that it's nice and all to recommend certain wallets to people but without really knowing what they need to do or have the ability to do advising them to use certain ones might actually be a disservice.

And, I know I have said the below in other threads before but I'll say it again.
Phones and PCs (Mac's too) are not secure, any wallet that is 100% reliant on them with no hardware / 2fa / multisig is also not secure.
The rest is just fluff.
And if you have auto update turned on which is the default then unless you know how the updates are pushed to the Play Store or iTunes Store then you are also at risk.
Is their github account secure? How about the workstation that they use to push updates up? etc.

-Dave

[hulla]

A popular quote says that "Nobody is more dangerous to himself than an ignorant individual."Therefore, recommending a specific wallet to newbies is not enough to guarantee their protection when they still lack the fundamental steps to avoid human mistakes and how to put wallet secure features to work.
The question about the computer we used which are not open source have been raised before on this forum but there should be a possible solution to secure wallet in case computers are tab.
Meanwhile, auto update and download of wallet is not an advisable idea which the newbies need to be aware.

[pooya87]

A popular quote says that "Nobody is more dangerous to himself than an ignorant individual."Therefore, recommending a specific wallet to newbies is not enough to guarantee their protection when they still lack the fundamental steps to avoid human mistakes and how to put wallet secure features to work.
The question about the computer we used which are not open source have been raised before on this forum but there should be a possible solution to secure wallet in case computers are tab.
Meanwhile, auto update and download of wallet is not an advisable idea which the newbies need to be aware.

i'd argue that someone who has made the effort of looking around and does the research to find a good wallet will also research about other things including how to increase their own security while using that wallet. it is those who don't make any effort who are in the most danger.

as for computers, the drama of some parts not being open source is just about privacy not security even though they try to include security in it too.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

i'd argue that someone who has made the effort of looking around and does the research to find a good wallet will also research about other things including how to increase their own security while using that wallet. it is those who don't make any effort who are in the most danger.

And I would say that a complete newbie to bitcoin probably wants to get a wallet in a hurry, since that's the first thing you need if you want to own bitcoin.  And assuming they are in a hurry and are presented with a choice of a huge number of wallets, they might not know which ones are good and which are complete crap.

Yes, newbies should absolutely do their research before choosing a wallet, but the reality is that a lot probably don't.  I know I wasn't very choosy when I picked my first wallet and I sure as hell didn't know about all of the important features that I do now that I have some experience. 

Lists like this to help noobs are not a bad thing.  There might be some disagreement about certain things, but overall I think they're helpful to someone who's just getting started.

And, I know I have said the below in other threads before but I'll say it again.
Phones and PCs (Mac's too) are not secure, any wallet that is 100% reliant on them with no hardware / 2fa / multisig is also not secure.
The rest is just fluff.

All of that is important, of course, but I don't think any of these things negates the importance of wallet recommendations.

[DaveF]

And, I know I have said the below in other threads before but I'll say it again.
Phones and PCs (Mac's too) are not secure, any wallet that is 100% reliant on them with no hardware / 2fa / multisig is also not secure.
The rest is just fluff.

All of that is important, of course, but I don't think any of these things negates the importance of wallet recommendations.

Which goes back to the post that made that I linked.

IMO a wallet recommendation, without knowing more then just "I need a BTC wallet" is difficult if not impossible to know what to recommend. The chart is good, but it's just a start.

If you are US based and all you want to do is trade BTC to USD and USD back to BTC in hopes of making a profit in a controlled regulated way then Coinbase wallet might be the way to go.

If you are talking trivial amounts (and the value will vary person to person) would an easier to use wallet be better?
Even if it's not as secure as we would like, if it's difficult for that person to use, it might actually be more secure for them. Because, a wallet that is more secure / better but more difficult to use (once again for them) might cause frustration / mistakes.

And sometimes it's just the "quality" of the wallet itself. I used to love mycelium. But because TWICE I could not connect to they server it delayed a trade / cost me a lot of time & effort to get it done I stopped using them. That comes into play also.

Also, there are other factors. Although I might not agree with them such as this about Samurai : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213333.msg54578860#msg54578860
Different view then I or the OP have but it's still there.

-Dave

[pooya87]

And assuming they are in a hurry and are presented with a choice of a huge number of wallets, they might not know which ones are good and which are complete crap.

it makes sense, specially the huge number of options made me thinking. studies show that when people are presented with a lot of choices they always have a much harder time making a choice compared to when they only have a handful of options to choose from.

[Wind_FURY]

i'd argue that someone who has made the effort of looking around and does the research to find a good wallet will also research about other things including how to increase their own security while using that wallet. it is those who don't make any effort who are in the most danger.

And I would say that a complete newbie to bitcoin probably wants to get a wallet in a hurry, since that's the first thing you need if you want to own bitcoin.  And assuming they are in a hurry and are presented with a choice of a huge number of wallets, they might not know which ones are good and which are complete crap.

Yes, newbies should absolutely do their research before choosing a wallet, but the reality is that a lot probably don't.  I know I wasn't very choosy when I picked my first wallet and I sure as hell didn't know about all of the important features that I do now that I have some experience. 

Lists like this to help noobs are not a bad thing.  There might be some disagreement about certain things, but overall I think they're helpful to someone who's just getting started.

Hahaha. I used Blockchain.info for my primary storage when I bought my first batch of Bitcoins. I believe most newbies did during 2015 - 2016.

And, I know I have said the below in other threads before but I'll say it again.
Phones and PCs (Mac's too) are not secure, any wallet that is 100% reliant on them with no hardware / 2fa / multisig is also not secure.
The rest is just fluff.

All of that is important, of course, but I don't think any of these things negates the importance of wallet recommendations.

Encrypted hot-wallets, stored in encrypted USBs, and plugged in in a computer exclusive for Bitcoin transactions, only if needed could be safe enough for most newbies' needs in my opinion.

[Wind_FURY]

IMO a wallet recommendation, without knowing more then just "I need a BTC wallet" is difficult if not impossible to know what to recommend. The chart is good, but it's just a start.

If you are US based and all you want to do is trade BTC to USD and USD back to BTC in hopes of making a profit in a controlled regulated way then Coinbase wallet might be the way to go.

If you are talking trivial amounts (and the value will vary person to person) would an easier to use wallet be better?
Even if it's not as secure as we would like, if it's difficult for that person to use, it might actually be more secure for them. Because, a wallet that is more secure / better but more difficult to use (once again for them) might cause frustration / mistakes.

As much as i hate custodial service, you made a good point for people who only care about profit.

But for actual wallet (not custodial service), i think we could find point between user-friendly and secure wallet, where the point depends on users preference.

Encrypted hot-wallets, stored in encrypted USBs, and plugged in in a computer exclusive for Bitcoin transactions, only if needed could be safe enough for most newbies' needs in my opinion.

Safe enough? I could agree.
For newbie? No, it's too complicated for newbies

I believe it would take a few days for newbies to learn, and a few more weeks to be comfortable with it. We learned, didn't we?

It's also better to learn, than to lose your coins.

[bob123]

Encrypted hot-wallets, stored in encrypted USBs, and plugged in in a computer exclusive for Bitcoin transactions, only if needed could be safe enough for most newbies' needs in my opinion.

If there is already a dedicated PC only for BTC transactions, it might as well be used as a cold wallet.

This is way too overkill for a hot wallet. You might as well just use a single USB with a bootable linux distro and the wallet file saved on some persistent storage on it (maybe even encrypted inside a veracrypt container or encrypted via LUKS).
That's just as secure as your approach, but doesn't need a dedicated PC (which could be used as cold storage anyway).

[Wind_FURY]

Encrypted hot-wallets, stored in encrypted USBs, and plugged in in a computer exclusive for Bitcoin transactions, only if needed could be safe enough for most newbies' needs in my opinion.

If there is already a dedicated PC only for BTC transactions, it might as well be used as a cold wallet.

This is way too overkill for a hot wallet. You might as well just use a single USB with a bootable linux distro and the wallet file saved on some persistent storage on it (maybe even encrypted inside a veracrypt container or encrypted via LUKS).
That's just as secure as your approach, but doesn't need a dedicated PC (which could be used as cold storage anyway).

But to be my own bank, and to put a large part of my savings in Bitcoin, give me overkill security with a hardware wallet AND a dedicated Bitcoin computer, than something I might regret.

It's better to overshoot security than undershoot it.

[bob123]

But to be my own bank, and to put a large part of my savings in Bitcoin, give me overkill security with a hardware wallet AND a dedicated Bitcoin computer, than something I might regret.

True.
But an encrypted USB stick is not comparable to a hardware wallet.

Using a dedicated (online) PC with an USB stick containing the sensitive information -> overkill for a hot wallet.
Using the dedicated PC offline as a cold wallet -> more secure and doesn't require more hardware/devices.

An encrypted USB storage device does not have any hardware security. The private keys are being unencrypted and accessible when a transaction is being signed.
This does not apply to a hardware wallet, where the private keys are inside of a secure element which does not leak any data while signing transactions.

[Wind_FURY]

Good, sound advice for newbies, and it applies to hardware-wallets too. Don't be the first users of a new product, because you will be the first actual public beta testers of a real-world release. Always wait for reviews, and fixes.

https://twitter.com/matt_odell/status/1301130083588071430

If you preorder first gen hardware you will almost always be disappointed.

[Wind_FURY]

For users/newbies who want to try Lightning payments, Veriphi wrote a blog comparing different wallets for the LN. I believe it cover all features extensively for all levels of users.

https://veriphi.io/en/blog/lightning-wallet-analysis

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jzJ2Vut6q-cbr7bg3tshqJszJFLXpvi194os7GxQQ30/edit?usp=sharing

[happyfeeshie]

Do you have any recommendations for where to get help with 3rd party wallet issues, such as when Bitcoinwallet.com holds your bitcoin hostage and refuses to approve the KYC (Know Your Customer) verification process after providing accurate information and high resolution images of ID? I would like to file a complaint if they do not approve me this fourth time. I am really starting to think they are just holding my bitcoin hostage because they know I am trying to transfer it out of their possession.