Should we just remove the wallet function of Bitcoin Core

[cheako]

Conservationism here is justified especially so in that one can simply set the key-pool to an arbitrarily high value and obtain most of the values of the fancier schemes; without many of of their costs.

I think a reasonable compromise would be to have wallets refuse to use new keys without explicit authorization.  If you backup the wallet.dat file, you are safe unless you hit "Yes" on the dialog box confirming that you have backed up.

The client could still generate the keys and add them to the wallet in advance of running out of old keys.

The sequence could be something like.

- When keys low, generate new keys and inform user that the wallet needs to be backed up
- When keys expire, ask user if they have backed up their new wallet.dat file

The user might hit ok, remembering a backup 2 times previously, so it isn't fully secure.

User interaction is only possible in the qt variant, on the server side it'd just stop working?

[1715348014]

1715348014

[1715348014]

1715348014

[1715348014]

1715348014

[laurentmt]

Imho, we shouldn't prevent users to do anything. If they want to put themselves at risk, they should be able to.
But a warning reminding the risk seems a really useful feature for new users. It might be something like the warnings implemented in web browsers.

[K1773R]

Education is better than enforcement. Or placing fake limits.

If 1000 people use Bitcoin Core without an incident every day, let's educate the 1 or 10 that need to avoid the problem.

HD wallets are good, easy to use, have a purpose. I'd say that Non-HD also have its place. Let people learn about both and choose.

Or the next suggestion will be to have a "master-key" to revert transactions because a victim in China sent 10BTC to a scammer, and we need to "protect" them right?

You just forgot one thing: Sheeple dont want to think for them self.

[NeuroticFish]

Just see another victim of the 100-address trap in the Chinese subforum. 10BTC lost. Comments in the thread say the best option for noobs is to use a centralized bitcoin bank. I just feel speechless and don't want to argue with them

Should we just remove the wallet function of Bitcoin Core if HD is not (read: will never be) implemented? If people want to be a full node, they can use Armory. Otherwise, they can use Electrum.

Actually, wallets without deterministic backup (e.g. Bitcoin Core) should not be recommended in bitcoin.org

At some point yahoo mail had a "seal", some words and color you personally set and it's displayed.
That was imho a great way to prevent n00bs to get scammed / lose account.
Maybe this would be needed?
However giving up a great service just because some users are not smart enough or at least not careful enough is not OK.



Now a question, maybe not related: I always see Armory and Electrum as first choices after Core. Is MultiBit bad or flawed? Am I missing something obvious?

[bandana]

removing the wallet function will lead to more spammers stealing from you. a wallet is necessary to store your bitcoins and give a security to your earnings. it is risky to use online wallets as hackers are prone to hack them easily.
its recommended to use wallet applications in your devices to have good security.

[Cinnob0n]

Better to keep the wallet part of the bitcoin core client. If you prefer not to have a wallet, just use a separate daughter client.