Ledger Nano S Plus alternatives?

[niftyswifty]

Heya everyone!

I was looking for the second HW wallet (I already own Trezor One for BTC, ETH) to hold my alts (like ADA, ATOM, NEAR etc.).
I thought to get Ledger nano s+, but are there any open-source alternatives for +/- the same price?

No need in bluetooth connection, basically the main purpose is to hold coins and connect to wallet once a month to check the balance.
Safepal was one of the options (good price), but you know, China and closed source.

Any suggestions welcome, thanks! (but please, only adequate solutions - I do not want a rare wallets with no good software background (maybe not Trezor suite or Ledger-live level, but still user-friendly)   )

[Charles-Tim]

You can check this lists of open Source Hardware Wallets. Note that ledger nano has open source software which is the Ledger Live, the hardware wallet itself only has a close source secure element. The wallet can be used with Electrum. But just that Ledger company also do not value privacy.

[niftyswifty]

You can check this lists of open Source Hardware Wallets. Note that ledger nano has open source software which is the Ledger Live, the hardware wallet itself only has a close source secure element. The wallet can be used with Electrum. But just that Ledger company also do not value privacy.

Thanks for the comment! I’ve looked through the list already, but to be fair did not find a really good alternative (some do not support necessary coins, some are pure China, etc.). As for ledger - yeah, I know about data leaks and already have disposable number and email for the order  
But yeah, closed source chip makes me a little doubtful

[jackg]

But yeah, closed source chip makes me a little doubtful

Airgapping has been suggested numerous times on here and might be an option depending on what you're after. (if you want to store and use a lot of different coins then it would be very impractical).

You essentially end up using two computers to sign and broadcast transactions, one online and one offline. The online machine is able to see what utxos you have (unspent coins) while you're offline machine does the signing of transactions and sends them back to the online machine to be broadcast.

[n0nce]

But yeah, closed source chip makes me a little doubtful

Airgapping has been suggested numerous times on here and might be an option depending on what you're after. (if you want to store and use a lot of different coins then it would be very impractical).

I don't think there is an airgapped hardware wallet with lots of supported coins.

To answer the original question, my recommendation would probably go to either Trezor Model T or BitBox02. Though I believe the Trezor is much higher build quality and more open source (no black-box secure element).

[DireWolfM14]

I was looking for the second HW wallet (I already own Trezor One for BTC, ETH) to hold my alts (like ADA, ATOM, NEAR etc.).
I thought to get Ledger nano s+, but are there any open-source alternatives for +/- the same price?

Just curious why don't you just get another Trezor One?  It fit's the requirements of open source and it's in the price range.  It also happens to be a great wallet.  The only drawback I find is it's not compatible with Monero's official wallet.

The other question that comes up, is why do you need another hardware wallet, just as a back up?  If it's just so you can have another set of addresses, you can do all that with one hardware wallet by setting up multiple Bip39 passphrases and/or derivation paths.

basically the main purpose is to hold coins and connect to wallet once a month to check the balance.

There's no need to connect your hardware wallet to check your balances.  All you need are watch-only versions of your wallets.

[niftyswifty]

Just curious why don't you just get another Trezor One?  It fit's the requirements of open source and it's in the price range.  It also happens to be a great wallet.  The only drawback I find is it's not compatible with Monero's official wallet.

Well the thing here is that trezor in general and moreover trezor one does not support coins, which I would like to store (ada, near, sol, atom..).. otherwise, a good wallet. No issues in storing eth and btc.

[Pmalek]

You can find plenty of cheap hardware wallets. But if your requirement is open-source with big list of supported altcoins and preferably with an open-source secure element, then you are out of luck. Trezor is working on creating the first almost fully open-source secure element, but I haven't heard any news on that front for months. Foundation Passport seems interesting to me. It's airgapped, open-source, but you won't be happy seeing a price of $250 for Batch 2.

Ratimov originally made a list of 80+ hardware wallets but he is not keeping it updated it seems. This list by FatFork is regularly updated. It's in Croatian but you can see what is available out there and it has links to official websites/stores and price information. Like I said, don't expect the cheap models to to meet all your requirements. Ledger offers more support for altcoins than any of the other popular brands, but it's not open-source. Trezor is, but their altcoin support list is shorter.

[niftyswifty]

You can find plenty of cheap hardware wallets. But if your requirement is open-source with big list of supported altcoins and preferably with an open-source secure element, then you are out of luck. Trezor is working on creating the first almost fully open-source secure element, but I haven't heard any news on that front for months. Foundation Passport seems interesting to me. It's airgapped, open-source, but you won't be happy seeing a price of $250 for Batch 2.

Ratimov originally made a list of 80+ hardware wallets but he is not keeping it updated it seems. This list by FatFork is regularly updated. It's in Croatian but you can see what is available out there and it has links to official websites/stores and price information. Like I said, don't expect the cheap models to to meet all your requirements. Ledger offers more support for altcoins than any of the other popular brands, but it's not open-source. Trezor is, but their altcoin support list is shorter.

This is actually my assumption, that there is no fair alternative then. Thanks!

[DireWolfM14]

Well the thing here is that trezor in general and moreover trezor one does not support coins, which I would like to store (ada, near, sol, atom..).. otherwise, a good wallet. No issues in storing eth and btc.

In that case I would recommend the Ledger Nano S plus.  Ledger tend to be at the forefront when it comes to supporting new altcoins.  If you own a lot of alts it can actually be an advantage since you can use Ledger Live to manage most of your assets, and don't have to install separate wallet clients for each alt.

I will take the opportunity to express my opinion, however; just because an alt is supported by Ledger doesn't make it worth owning.

[Stalker22]

~
As for ledger - yeah, I know about data leaks and already have disposable number and email for the order  

The use of disposable numbers and emails is certainly good for your safety and the security of your data, but personal information, such as your full name and address, is the biggest risk of data leaks and pose the biggest threat. These are the things you should keep in mind while sharing your personal details to avoid any kind of threats and attacks on you in the real world.

[niftyswifty]

~
As for ledger - yeah, I know about data leaks and already have disposable number and email for the order  

The use of disposable numbers and emails is certainly good for your safety and the security of your data, but personal information, such as your full name and address, is the biggest risk of data leaks and pose the biggest threat. These are the things you should keep in mind while sharing your personal details to avoid any kind of threats and attacks on you in the real world.

True, but well it is not possible to be completely anonymous. Also,I try not no be too paranoid about that 😏

[JL0]

Why not BitBox02? In my opinion the smarter choice. They don't even trust the seucre element and don't store any important information there.

Here you can learn more about it:

https://shiftcrypto.ch/blog/best-of-both-worlds-using-a-secure-chip-with-open-source-firmware/

The closed-source drawback
Secure chips are not even that expensive, so why does not every hardware wallet use them? The main drawback is that secure chips are closed source. Firmware running on a secure chip cannot be released as open source due to enforced non-disclosure agreements.

When it comes to firmware securing your bitcoin, creating random seeds and signing transactions, trusting closed source software that cannot be independently audited is just not good enough. In our opinion, you should not need to trust the manufacturer of your hardware wallet (and all its individual employees) to belong to the “good guys”, diligently finding their own bugs without independent reviews and then actually fixing them.

[niftyswifty]

Well the thing here is that trezor in general and moreover trezor one does not support coins, which I would like to store (ada, near, sol, atom..).. otherwise, a good wallet. No issues in storing eth and btc.

In that case I would recommend the Ledger Nano S plus.  Ledger tend to be at the forefront when it comes to supporting new altcoins.  If you own a lot of alts it can actually be an advantage since you can use Ledger Live to manage most of your assets, and don't have to install separate wallet clients for each alt.

I will take the opportunity to express my opinion, however; just because an alt is supported by Ledger doesn't make it worth owning.

Looks like the best option     well I am not a big fan of alts, but I have some more or less significant amount, which I want to hold until next bull run and then convert them to btc (or not/not all)

Why not BitBox02? In my opinion the smarter choice. They don't even trust the seucre element and don't store any important information there.

Here you can learn more about it:

https://shiftcrypto.ch/blog/best-of-both-worlds-using-a-secure-chip-with-open-source-firmware/

The closed-source drawback
Secure chips are not even that expensive, so why does not every hardware wallet use them? The main drawback is that secure chips are closed source. Firmware running on a secure chip cannot be released as open source due to enforced non-disclosure agreements.

When it comes to firmware securing your bitcoin, creating random seeds and signing transactions, trusting closed source software that cannot be independently audited is just not good enough. In our opinion, you should not need to trust the manufacturer of your hardware wallet (and all its individual employees) to belong to the “good guys”, diligently finding their own bugs without independent reviews and then actually fixing them.

Looks not bad, although twice as expensive as ledger, but maybe worth to have a look. Thanks!

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[dkbit98]

I was looking for the second HW wallet (I already own Trezor One for BTC, ETH) to hold my alts (like ADA, ATOM, NEAR etc.).
I thought to get Ledger nano s+, but are there any open-source alternatives for +/- the same price?

I would not waste any money for storing bunch of altcoins on hardware wallet, especially if you already have a Trezor wallet you can use for that.

If you still decide to buy one more hardware wallet, I would never buy cheap Safepal wallet for sure.
Wallet that is offering some improvements compared with Trezor with higher price would be Bitbox02, it's open source wallet with secure element and it supports altcoins.
There are other options but they are mostly Chinese Trezor replicas or they don't support altcoins, so they are not for you.

Keystone wallet is not a bad choice, it is airgapped and much more secure, but it is also more expensive (unless you get some discount coupon).
Check out coin support on this page:
https://keyst.one/keystone-supported-crypto-assets

[n0nce]

Why not BitBox02? In my opinion the smarter choice. They don't even trust the seucre element and don't store any important information there.

Here you can learn more about it:

https://shiftcrypto.ch/blog/best-of-both-worlds-using-a-secure-chip-with-open-source-firmware/

The closed-source drawback
Secure chips are not even that expensive, so why does not every hardware wallet use them? The main drawback is that secure chips are closed source. Firmware running on a secure chip cannot be released as open source due to enforced non-disclosure agreements.

When it comes to firmware securing your bitcoin, creating random seeds and signing transactions, trusting closed source software that cannot be independently audited is just not good enough. In our opinion, you should not need to trust the manufacturer of your hardware wallet (and all its individual employees) to belong to the “good guys”, diligently finding their own bugs without independent reviews and then actually fixing them.

Looks not bad, although twice as expensive as ledger, but maybe worth to have a look. Thanks!

Sorry for the hot take, but if you can't afford the BitBox02 or Trezor Model T, something's not working out with those alt trades. If you can't make $200 in a reasonable amount of time with your alts, I'd personally recommend sticking to BTC..

[niftyswifty]

Why not BitBox02? In my opinion the smarter choice. They don't even trust the seucre element and don't store any important information there.

Here you can learn more about it:

https://shiftcrypto.ch/blog/best-of-both-worlds-using-a-secure-chip-with-open-source-firmware/

The closed-source drawback
Secure chips are not even that expensive, so why does not every hardware wallet use them? The main drawback is that secure chips are closed source. Firmware running on a secure chip cannot be released as open source due to enforced non-disclosure agreements.

When it comes to firmware securing your bitcoin, creating random seeds and signing transactions, trusting closed source software that cannot be independently audited is just not good enough. In our opinion, you should not need to trust the manufacturer of your hardware wallet (and all its individual employees) to belong to the “good guys”, diligently finding their own bugs without independent reviews and then actually fixing them.

Looks not bad, although twice as expensive as ledger, but maybe worth to have a look. Thanks!

Sorry for the hot take, but if you can't afford the BitBox02 or Trezor Model T, something's not working out with those alt trades. If you can't make $200 in a reasonable amount of time with your alts, I'd personally recommend sticking to BTC..

It’s ok! 😁 and no, actually I can, I just wanted not to spend money if it would possible not to spend (as mentioned, I would like to sell most of alts during the next bull run) 😏 but bitbox is not the option, as it does not support coins I have mentioned. Thanks!

I was looking for the second HW wallet (I already own Trezor One for BTC, ETH) to hold my alts (like ADA, ATOM, NEAR etc.).
I thought to get Ledger nano s+, but are there any open-source alternatives for +/- the same price?

I would not waste any money for storing bunch of altcoins on hardware wallet, especially if you already have a Trezor wallet you can use for that.

If you still decide to buy one more hardware wallet, I would never buy cheap Safepal wallet for sure.
Wallet that is offering some improvements compared with Trezor with higher price would be Bitbox02, it's open source wallet with secure element and it supports altcoins.
There are other options but they are mostly Chinese Trezor replicas or they don't support altcoins, so they are not for you.

Keystone wallet is not a bad choice, it is airgapped and much more secure, but it is also more expensive (unless you get some discount coupon).
Check out coin support on this page:
https://keyst.one/keystone-supported-crypto-assets

Well the amount currently thrown in alts is relatively high, so it would be stupid to hold them on an exchange, so I definitely would need one. Yeah, it looks, that bitbox is out of budget, but it is the only reasonable option and I will most probably go with it. Thanks!

[Pmalek]

If the BitBox02 is your choice, make sure you check what altcoins it supports first. You can do that on https://shiftcrypto.ch/coins/

From your initial list that you posted in your OP (ADA, ATOM, NEAR), only Cardano is supported. By ATOM I assume you mean Cosmos. There is no support for that asset. NEAR isn't on the list either. Depending on what other coins you have, decide for yourself if it makes sense purchasing a hardware wallet to store your altcoins when that device doesn't support most/some of them. Why get it for that purpose in the first place then?

[niftyswifty]

If the BitBox02 is your choice, make sure you check what altcoins it supports first. You can do that on https://shiftcrypto.ch/coins/

From your initial list that you posted in your OP (ADA, ATOM, NEAR), only Cardano is supported. By ATOM I assume you mean Cosmos. There is no support for that asset. NEAR isn't on the list either. Depending on what other coins you have, decide for yourself if it makes sense purchasing a hardware wallet to store your altcoins when that device doesn't support most/some of them. Why get it for that purpose in the first place then?

you are right!

at first looked a very good option, but in reality no point in getting one, as I could only store ADA

[n0nce]

If the BitBox02 is your choice, make sure you check what altcoins it supports first. You can do that on https://shiftcrypto.ch/coins/

From your initial list that you posted in your OP (ADA, ATOM, NEAR), only Cardano is supported. By ATOM I assume you mean Cosmos. There is no support for that asset. NEAR isn't on the list either. Depending on what other coins you have, decide for yourself if it makes sense purchasing a hardware wallet to store your altcoins when that device doesn't support most/some of them. Why get it for that purpose in the first place then?

you are right!

at first looked a very good option, but in reality no point in getting one, as I could only store ADA

I just checked, and while Trezor model T supports 1816 coins and tokens, it neither supports ATOM or NEAR. Ledger Nano S Plus supports over 5500 assets (not sure if that's just 'coins and tokens' or also NFTs and that kind of stuff) and does have those two coins.
If I was you, I'd check how many coins I could transfer to the model T. Then check how much cash you hold in unsupported coins and evaluate if you're fine leaving them on the exchange or not.

I'm not advocating for keeping coins on exchanges, but I'm also not advocating for using exchanges in general. There's still a point I'd like to make: withdrawing and depositing is not always trivial and without issues. Besides fees, you risk getting your coins stolen by the exchange.
One recent such example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5404704

[Blacklist] of unreliable, 'taint proclaiming' Bitcoin services / exchanges
I call a service unreliable if I can't know 100% for sure that what I deposit will actually be credited to my account or not.

Especially for smaller amounts, it may really be simpler, cheaper and safer to leave them on the exchange. This may also depend on the exchange (size, reputation, ...) - some are more likely to pull off an exit scam than others.