Coinbase Wallet

[o_e_l_e_o]

NO!
In as much as it seed phrase can be imported into another wallet in order to access the private keys and blockchain, it should be called a non-custodial wallet. The reasons that some wallets are closed source isn't arrogance and in some cases these wallets started as open source and later turned to closed source.

You are wrong.

Just because it provides a seed phrase does not mean it is non-custodial. Since the wallet is closed source, you have absolutely no idea how that seed phrase was generated, how it is stored, who else has access to it, and so on. For all you know, Coinbase (or Coinomi, or Trust wallet) have a list of every seed phrase their wallets have ever generated stored on a server somewhere.

I'd also point out that the reasons Trust wallet gave for moving to closed source are bullshit:

I know this is the reasoning Trust wallet give for being closed source, but I don't buy this reasoning at all. The only part of a wallet which 99.9% of users pay attention is the GUI. It is trivial to clone a GUI even without access to the source code. Being closed source might keep all the back end, the wallet generation process, the signing transaction processes, etc., hidden from attackers, but attackers do not care about any of that in the slightest. All they need is a wallet which looks the same as Trust wallet, which sends any generated or entered seed phrases to their server online. So they can use any bare bones code which generates seed phrases, add in their malicious code to send those seed phrases to a server, copy the GUI just by looking at it, and release it to the app store as "Trust Wallet". Being closed source does nothing to protect against this.

[rby]

I'd also point out that the reasons Trust wallet gave for moving to closed source are bullshit:

It sounds bullshit and like some defensive statements which anyone could make up to defend their decisions.

NO!
In as much as it seed phrase can be imported into another wallet in order to access the private keys and blockchain, it should be called a non-custodial wallet. The reasons that some wallets are closed source isn't arrogance and in some cases these wallets started as open source and later turned to closed source.

You are wrong.

Just because it provides a seed phrase does not mean it is non-custodial. Since the wallet is closed source, you have absolutely no idea how that seed phrase was generated, how it is stored, who else has access to it, and so on. For all you know, Coinbase (or Coinomi, or Trust wallet) have a list of every seed phrase their wallets have ever generated stored on a server somewhere.

The basics of wallet categorization as custodial and non-custodial is the idea of who holds the private keys. Everyone other thing is seconda. As the name implies, custodial (the seed phrase in custody of a third party). Then, if two people are holding the seed phrase it could be called co-custodial (completely made up).
So, I mean if the backend guys store the keys in there server, it can be called an unsafe non-custodial wallet instead of making it totally the opposite.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

So, I mean if the backend guys store the keys in there server, it can be called an unsafe non-custodial wallet instead of making it totally the opposite.

or perhaps they also have "custody" of your funds since they also hold keys to your money? 

I think someone opting for a closed source wallet which claims to give them control of their funds makes no sense at all

[o_e_l_e_o]

The basics of wallet categorization as custodial and non-custodial is the idea of who holds the private keys.

And in a closed source wallet you simply don't know who holds the private keys, so you cannot call it non-custodial.

[DaveF]

The basics of wallet categorization as custodial and non-custodial is the idea of who holds the private keys.

And in a closed source wallet you simply don't know who holds the private keys, so you cannot call it non-custodial.

You don't know who has ACCESS to the keys.
It's trivial to check if you have them, all you have to do is take whatever device offline and then start the wallet. If you have access to the keys / seed it's non custodial.

WHO ELSE HAS CUSTODY OF THE KEYS IS A DIFFERENT THING.

Coinomi wallet / trust wallet / many others we can say they are non custodial since you can get the private keys and seed and do whatever you want with them.

Are they safe? Are they secure? Can they be trusted, has 0 to do with that.

I can write a 100% open source non custodial wallet that once funds are sent to it you can only send to me.
That does not make it any less open source or non custodial. It, just makes it a bad wallet choice.

-Dave

[o_e_l_e_o]

I'm going to agree to disagree here. A non-custodial wallet should be one in which I, and I alone, have access to the private keys. If someone else also has access, then I wouldn't call that non-custodial. If you can't prove that no one else has access (as is the case with every closed source wallet), then I also wouldn't call it non-custodial.

It's not a perfect categorization, but that's what happens when we apply binary labels like custodial/non-custodial or hot/cold to wallets. The safest wallets are non-custodial wallets in which I exclusively hold the private keys, and that is provably the case. Everything else should be classified as custodial so we do not muddy the waters by people using closed source wallets in which they think they have exclusive access to their private keys, and then wondering why their seed phrase was sent across the internet to Google servers and all their coins were stolen.

[Agbe]

Op use the one everyone is saying which is Electrum. Electrum is like the Central Bank of Bitcoin where guarantee trust is impeded. I have not used Coinbase Wallet before but from what you saying, if wish to give a try then go ahead. Coinbase Wallet might have a link with Coinbase.com even though the wallet is open source, which is only you have control over your funds. And close source wallets are not to keep coins or funds for a long period of time but for short period of time. If you want to do instant transaction business with someone then you can use custodian wallets but if it is for a long time storage and for investment purpose, then non custodian wallet is advise to use.

[rby]

The basics of wallet categorization as custodial and non-custodial is the idea of who holds the private keys.

And in a closed source wallet you simply don't know who holds the private keys, so you cannot call it non-custodial.

You don't know who has ACCESS to the keys.
It's trivial to check if you have them, all you have to do is take whatever device offline and then start the wallet. If you have access to the keys / seed it's non custodial.

WHO ELSE HAS CUSTODY OF THE KEYS IS A DIFFERENT THING.

Coinomi wallet / trust wallet / many others we can say they are non custodial since you can get the private keys and seed and do whatever you want with them.

Are they safe? Are they secure? Can they be trusted, has 0 to do with that.

I can write a 100% open source non custodial wallet that once funds are sent to it you can only send to me.
That does not make it any less open source or non custodial. It, just makes it a bad wallet choice.

-Dave

Dave, you just replicated my mind. It may be that I lack some accurate words to put my explanation forward but with what I said above, it is just agreeing with what you said.
There is no point trying to re-categorize a closed source non-custodial wallet because it is not an open source code.

I'm going to agree to disagree here. A non-custodial wallet should be one in which I, and I alone, have access to the private keys. If someone else also has access, then I wouldn't call that non-custodial.

According to your analogy, if I expose my electrum wallet seed phrase to people such that upto 10 persons have access to the seed phrase, does it automatically make electrum wallet a custodial wallet?

[o_e_l_e_o]

According to your analogy, if I expose my electrum wallet seed phrase to people such that upto 10 persons have access to the seed phrase, does it automatically make electrum wallet a custodial wallet?

It says nothing about Electrum, since Electrum can be used in a variety of ways, as a hot wallet, or a cold wallet, or a multi-sig wallet, or a 2FA wallet, and so on.

It does mean that your specific wallet is no longer non-custodial since other people have the ability to take all your coins without your consent.

[rby]

According to your analogy, if I expose my electrum wallet seed phrase to people such that upto 10 persons have access to the seed phrase, does it automatically make electrum wallet a custodial wallet?

It says nothing about Electrum, since Electrum can be used in a variety of ways, as a hot wallet, or a cold wallet, or a multi-sig wallet, or a 2FA wallet, and so on.

Noted!

It does mean that your specific wallet is no longer non-custodial since other people have the ability to take all your coins without your consent.

Ok!
It simply means that if anyone else knows my keys, be it the company that developed the wallet, be it my wife (with or without my consent). Since, another person other than me has access or is in possession of the keys, that specific wallet that generated the keys is to be regarded as a custodial wallet.