Bitcoin + MetaMask?

[ubet_degen]

Hey this is my first post on this forum!

To be honest, I'm generally new to the defi, crypto, web3, and this forum (!) so I'm still learning a lot but I think I understand some of the basics. I've read the rules and guidelines before making this post but please correct me if I made any mistakes. It seems that the community here is very knowledgeable so I'm grateful to be here and to absorb 

I did a search for "MetaMask" on here and found that MetaMask published a tweet about Bitcoin support about 4-5 months ago, but when I did a google search to find any updates, I got nil. From reading the forums, I got the sense that MetaMask is kind of useful as a prepaid credit card for interfacing with dapps but not as a long-term storage for large amounts of crypto as it has some security concerns being a chrome extension and all.

Technically, I get that Bitcoin isn't an ERC20 token so it's not compatible with MetaMask which is Ethereum-based, but there's the option of wrapped BTC right? So does it even make sense to add Bitcoin support for MetaMask? Seems like a low priority.

[1714208255]

1714208255

[1714208255]

1714208255

[1714208255]

1714208255

[1714208255]

1714208255

[NeuroticFish]

Technically, I get that Bitcoin isn't an ERC20 token so it's not compatible with MetaMask which is Ethereum-based, but there's the option of wrapped BTC right? So does it even make sense to add Bitcoin support for MetaMask? Seems like a low priority.

Welcome aboard!
Wrapped bitcoin is just another ERC20 token with a fancy name; it's not bitcoin.
As you said, Metamask works with things on Ethereum blockchain. Bitcoin has it's own blockchain, different from ETH. So Metamask cannot just add Bitcoin like it adds tokens.

[ubet_degen]

Hey thanks for the warm welcome and reply.
Yes, I can understand that WBTC != BTC.
From the Jan 2019 WBTC whitepaper I just read, WBTC tracks the price of BTC and is facilitated by custodian BitGo, and initial merchants, Kyber Network and Republic Protocol. A quick google search revealed that there are significantly more merchants now but BitGo remains the only custodian.
It's kind of interesting that there is still only one custodian, isn't it?

[Stalker22]

~
It's kind of interesting that there is still only one custodian, isn't it?

I do not know if it is interesting or not, because even if there were more custodians, I still would not trust this token with a lot of money.

I think you should understand that once you exchange your BTC for WBTC tokens, you no longer own the original bitcoin, but rather a token that runs on a completely different network, and that may or may not be worth as much as BTC in the future. If you buy WBTC, there is no guarantee that the value of WBTC will be equal to the value of bitcoin in the future. I do not know if this is possible or not, and I do not want to look into it, but what happens if the owner of the WBTC smart contract decides to rug pull?

[Moeda]

You can add Bitcoins to Metamask, but you can only add Bitcoin ERC20 developed by third parties or commonly known as Wrapped BTC (WBTC). WBTC also has the same price as BTC. However, this coin can only be traded on the Dex platform, whereas most exchanges use Bitcoin Core trading.

[buwaytress]

You can add Bitcoins to Metamask, but you can only add Bitcoin ERC20 developed by third parties or commonly known as Wrapped BTC (WBTC). WBTC also has the same price as BTC. However, this coin can only be traded on the Dex platform, whereas most exchanges use Bitcoin Core trading.

Please don't confuse people. You can't add Bitcoin to Metamask, you can't interact at all with Bitcoin as MetaMask is not a Bitcoin client.

ERC20 is a token standard anyone can create at the click of a button with certain apps, you can even name it BitcoinSuper if you want. WBTC is just one of several types of tokens "representing" Bitcoin and tracking its price.

Also, not a single exchange I can recall now uses "Bitcoin Core". It's Bitcoin. Please don't confuse people.

[jackg]

I think from a security standpoint it's safer to have the two wallets as separate and different (if your browser gets malware, your other wallet would be safe). Things like hardware wallets are a good way to bridge the gap if you only want one nmemonic and passphrase but want to keep a good level of security too.

I think metamask would be better off focusing on improving their gui and adding extra and better functions before they added bitcoins or other coins. I feel it might even be confusing to use metamask to interact with other blockchains like harmony one/phantom/bsc for newbies already too, if bitcoin was added in a similarly confusing way to those then I think you'd see a lot more mistakes and loss of funds before any widespread benefit came from it.

[Nhazwrath]

metamask also functions on other browsers like firefox which isnt a giant engine designed to both steal and advertise at you at the same time =>  stay away from chrome. 

[DapanasFruit]

I love to see many new people getting into the world and market of cryptocurrency...and yes inquiring on things so that they can get past of the learning curve which can be necessary to function well as a crypto enthusiast and a crypto holder as well. Now, as to Metamask it is definitely not connected to Bitcoin - at least directly so i am suggesting that when it comes to Bitcoin you find another  wallet that can accommodate this concern...and I think there are many out there just make they are non-custodial for your own safely.

[Sarah Azhari]

You can add Bitcoins to Metamask,

Sure, but don't get people confused here. I used seed which I used for metamask and electrum wallet.

metamask also functions on other browsers like firefox which isnt a giant engine designed to both steal and advertise at you at the same time =>  stay away from chrome. 

It's not a point, OP is just clarifying and had the mistaken misinterpreted token between bitcoin. So whatever the browser, before you create a wallet, turn off the internet, I used chrome for a long time and never had a problem with my metamask wallet.

[OgNasty]

After being exposed to metamask and logging into websites with your web3 identity, Bitcoin definitely starts feeling a little bit behind the times. I hope that at some point we do get widespread adoption for this sort of tech using Bitcoin instead of other options like Ethereum, Polygon, Solana…

[worle1bm]

There is only one and one bitcoin that we all know and all others in the market using it's corresponding name are simply not bitcoin which we all should know.Metamask wallet only handles Eth related tokens or say ERC-20 tokens on your address and that WBTC is just another fake copy token of bitcoin but cannot match it's power.

metamask also functions on other browsers like firefox which isnt a giant engine designed to both steal and advertise at you at the same time =>  stay away from chrome. 

Chrome is not a safe option but you should be careful while clicking the links and until you connect your wallet to any unauthorised sites you are not at risk so it's not only browser but your personal responsibility also to be careful.

[Yatsan]

The idea is good but I have used metamask before for P2E purposes and I had issues with transactions wherein there are times of delays and not to mention high transaction fees. Bitcoin adaptation will be useful, much more if other factors will be also improved. Also, as other users have mentioned, chrome is not as secure as other or traditional exchangers or wallets, so I guess it is also something to consider.

[dkbit98]

Technically, I get that Bitcoin isn't an ERC20 token so it's not compatible with MetaMask which is Ethereum-based, but there's the option of wrapped BTC right? So does it even make sense to add Bitcoin support for MetaMask? Seems like a low priority.

Wrapped bitcoin tokens are NOT Bitcoin, and it's silly to think that Bitcoin would need any support for this with wallets like metamask 
All this tokens are centralized and controlled by few individuals and companies, so it's a big risk holding anything in this tokens or using any bridges.
Other huge issue is censorship that exist on shitereum and other blockchains are even worse, 45% of all ETH validators are censoring transactions, with 29% of all blocks being OFAC compliant and the number is growing all the time!
Nobody should use this blockchain for anything, or they could end up with unusable frozen coins.

[Jawhead999]

metamask also functions on other browsers like firefox which isnt a giant engine designed to both steal and advertise at you at the same time =>  stay away from chrome. 

It's not a point, OP is just clarifying and had the mistaken misinterpreted token between bitcoin. So whatever the browser, before you create a wallet, turn off the internet, I used chrome for a long time and never had a problem with my metamask wallet.

Now what's the point to run off the internet before creating new wallet? you're still using the web wallet with connected internet. It doesn't mean after you create the wallet without internet, your wallet is invulnerable against any online attacks.

The reason why he suggest to stay away from chrome is this web browser has very bad since they're spying all of your activity. There's a chance if they're also spying your private key too, this mean chrome team might know your private key, but they just don't want to steal it until now.

[mk4]

To the replies saying that MetaMask can't add native Bitcoin(BTC): Why can't they? Whatever your private key is on MetaMask, can't it also easily be imported(in the back-end) to a separately coded Bitcoin wallet on the same MetaMask app/plugin? Ending you up with your MetaMask having a native Bitcoin(BTC) wallet.

Not 100% sure, but sounds like an easy task for competent developers as far as I know.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Welcome! If you're searching for a non-custodial Bitcoin wallet, I recommend Electrum and Sparrow. I'd absolutely avoid closed-source software, as well as MetaMask that's a project devoted in techno-feudalistic Ethereum.

Not 100% sure, but sounds like an easy task for competent developers as far as I know.

It's an easy task, but it's not MetaMask, because MetaMask is based on Ethereum. It's the same as arguing it can work as a calculator, because implementing a calculator is an easy task.

[mk4]

It's an easy task, but it's not MetaMask, because MetaMask is based on Ethereum. It's the same as arguing it can work as a calculator, because implementing a calculator is an easy task.

Just because MetaMask is solely for the Ethereum network right now doesn't change that fact that they can't pivot to be something like TrustWallet/Exodus/LedgerLive which caters to multiple blockchains.

[cryptoaddictchie]

After being exposed to metamask and logging into websites with your web3 identity, Bitcoin definitely starts feeling a little bit behind the times. I hope that at some point we do get widespread adoption for this sort of tech using Bitcoin instead of other options like Ethereum, Polygon, Solana…

On that thought you are right. But is it possible for bitcoin network to do things as what being done on ethereum network and other L1? I doubt a big changes could be beneficial for bitcoin. Its primary purpose will remain as it is, as store of value and used on transaction with peer to peer or even other institutional firms. But having a defi application could ruin its historical and main goal of Satoshi. But who knows what would happened if someone able to manage to improve bitcoin in the future.

[witcher_sense]

Just because MetaMask is solely for the Ethereum network right now doesn't change that fact that they can't pivot to be something like TrustWallet/Exodus/LedgerLive which caters to multiple blockchains.

Have you wondered why altcoin founders create their own tokens instead of using Bitcoin which simply works better than any altcoin? For exactly the same reason Metamask will never add Bitcoin into its software. They have no financial incentive to include something decentralized like the Bitcoin blockchain. ConsenSys Software Inc. owns Metamask as well as a company Infura that provides API to Ethereum full nodes. Given that it is infeasible for common people to have their own full nodes running, ConsenSys makes money selling access to this centralized bullshit while also making money staking these useless coins. In the case of Bitcoin, however, you don't make money just by running a full node, and you can't sell anything because a full node can be spun up even on small devices like Raspberry Pi, which means if you need one, you can have one without subscription to API. Unlike Bitcoin, its full nodes aren't scarce, whereas, in Ethereum, the coin itself is abundant, but its nodes are very rare.