Why I prefer Decentralized wallet

[Outhue]

There are not many so called decentralized wallet around mate and even some lied about been truly decentralized if you don't mind can you please list a few decentralized wallets that you know of? I will like to check them out.

Its hard to find in altcoins such fully decentralized even though their non custodial on output but the source is closed one.  So in short there will be such vulnerabilities and risk associated.

People playing on altcoins should be aware of that,  thats why its imperative to have such shitcoin wallets that worth to trust even its kinda risky.  For example metamask.

To be totally safe, convert that into btc and stored on proven decentralized wallet such as bitcoin core.

What about coins like Monero and Tornado Cash? Aren't this fully decentralised projects aka privacy? What categories did they belong to? Their wallets are very well secured and the only way to fuck up is you losing your keys, not all altcoins sucks and these have their very own wallets unlike using Metamask and Coinomi to store shitcoins .

[mk4]

What about coins like Monero and Tornado Cash? Aren't this fully decentralised projects aka privacy? What categories did they belong to? Their wallets are very well secured and the only way to fuck up is you losing your keys, not all altcoins sucks and these have their very own wallets unlike using Metamask and Coinomi to store shitcoins .

Decentralized =/= private.

Decentralized means that no one entity has control over the network.

Not sure about Tornado Cash, but I don't think it's decentralized enough to be called "decentralized", because it's mostly still a single core team; like with most DeFi projects.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Decentralization is the situation by which a process is driven by everyone who wants to get involved, and not just by a few entities. For example, bitcoin is a decentralized Internet currency, because decisions are made with users' consensus. On the other hand, Google Pay, for instance, is far more centralized, because the software is driven by Google exclusively, and hence, Google alone decides for the software's policy.

You don't call a software "decentralized", because pieces of code are neutral. What you do name centralized/decentralized is the software's network policy and implementation.

Example #1: Visa (the product or implementation of a payment processor service) is centralized, because there's only one server that makes decisions, and users are common clients.
Example #2: Bitcoin (the implementation of an Internet currency) is decentralized, because each node isn't told what to do by a head server, but instead, it makes its own decisions, forming a peer-to-peer network wherein each peer is autonomous.

Wallet software, such as Electrum, doesn't have such network policy, and it's therefore incorrect to name it "decentralized". However, websites such as Binance work similarly to example #1, and therefore, their wallet software's policy can be called "centralized".

[witcher_sense]

If you really truly meant decentralized, then the Bitcoin Core software is pretty much your only choice. Or if you meant wallets where you can have total control over your keys and is open-source, then you're talking about non-custodial wallets(Electrum/Wasabi/BlueWallet/etc). There's a significant difference between the two.

You phrase it as if in Bitcoin Core, users have no control over private keys and that this wallet is not open-source in the usual sense but is something more than a bitcoin wallet, sacred and mythical like a decentralized entity that exists outside comprehension and sway of human beings. No, Bitcoin Core is not "decentralized" because it is just a piece of code that behaves identically on any computer which runs it. It should behave identically and enforce the same for all rules because this is how consensus is being achieved. Decentralization is a distributed process by means of which people or software come to an agreed-upon truth. Truth doesn't need to be "real" truth; this truth is only applicable to a system where it is being found through the painful process of achieving consensus. Bitcoin Core, however, is decentralized in a different sense: the process of development distributes among thousands of participants, and there is no particular person or group who can dictate what to add or remove from the code.

[mk4]

You phrase it as if in Bitcoin Core, users have no control over private keys and that this wallet is not open-source in the usual sense but is something more than a bitcoin wallet, sacred and mythical like a decentralized entity that exists outside comprehension and sway of human beings.

If that's what you thought, then you misunderstood what I said.

No, Bitcoin Core is not "decentralized" because it is just a piece of code that behaves identically on any computer which runs it. It should behave identically and enforce the same for all rules because this is how consensus is being achieved. Decentralization is a distributed process by means of which people or software come to an agreed-upon truth. Truth doesn't need to be "real" truth; this truth is only applicable to a system where it is being found through the painful process of achieving consensus. Bitcoin Core, however, is decentralized in a different sense: the process of development distributes among thousands of participants, and there is no particular person or group who can dictate what to add or remove from the code.

Pretty much, I called it "decentralized" in a way that no one sole company/entity is in control of the software development. As for the others, you're probably over-analyzing my 3-sentence reply.