Have you learned about open and close source wallet?

[imamusma]

Electrum which is known as an open-source wallet had also been compromised when the majority of its server was controlled by hackers tricking the user to reveal their private key

Electrum has been never compromised.
Electrum versions older than 3.3.4 had a vulnerability which allowed servers to display any arbitrary message. Some servers abused this feature and asked users to download a fake version of electrum. This was completely different from what happened to Atomic wallet users.
Electrum victims had downloaded a fake version while Atomic wallet victims downloaded a real version. Electrum victims made a mistake with downloading the application from a website other than the official website and not verifying GPG signatures.

Thus the two cases above it becomes clear that they are never the same. The point of it all is that it's not 100% secure, so bitcoin users should know enough how they can get good security for their bitcoins especially if they want to keep them long term. The online wallet is not the best so I think they should keep it on the offline wallet especially on hardware.

Even though Electrum is one of the wallets with a good reputation and security for bitcoin users, but Electrum is not recommended for expert users. Yes it is because experts will obviously really want a higher level of security than what Electrum has to offer.

[1715539010]

1715539010

[1715539010]

1715539010

[1715539010]

1715539010

[sokani]

For non-techie users, there is nothing else we can do but to trust the developers. Since we lack the knowledge to verify the safetiness of the wallet used, it does not matter whetheri it is a close source or open source, we only rely on the reputation of the said wallet.

Reputation is not enough. I cannot store my asset in a wallet because the company announced that the wallet is an open source or because the company is a major player in the crypto space. Their words and reputation are not enough. If they will not reveal the source code of the wallet on GitHub for other developers to verify it, then I have no business with such wallet.

Open wallet is not a guarantee ticket to security, because even the open source was created by someone and there person can update the server at anytime.

For a wallet that's open source, for every new update or version that's been released, the code is also updated on GitHub so there's nothing to hide.

But from what we discussed yesterday about this Atomic Wallet. It was an open source but funds were transferred from the main server and definitely need all know that, that is not an open source project again. Or was the software compromised? What happened does not look like an open source

Atomic wallet is a close source wallet.

[hugeblack]

Being open source does not mean that you are safe, but it reduces the risks that can reach you, and the fact that the wallet is open source and well reviewed is the best because the wallet is open source without reviews and closed source is at a level close to the risks.

All of this is related to your tracking of the news and knowing when an update is necessary and about the expected attacks, because without seeing the news and updates in the market, even open-source wallets with good programming may find some vulnerability.