22 Bitcoin Software Wallets, compared feature by feature

[Charles-Tim]

Since we are talking about crypto-software-wallets, there is no need to mention LAUNCH YEAR/COMPANY/HEADQUARTERS/X (TWITTER),...etc

Why not?

I think it depends on how you want it, in my opinion. But it is because these are not the criteria to be used to know if a wallet is good or not.

I disagree, it's very important to have an app lock as an extra protection. Also, take into account that some wallets are for desktop. And the app lock is usually related with an encryption of the keys on the device.

The reason I see password not to be included is because any wallet that did not include pin or password to access the wallet should not be recommended.

This is how we are doing on this forum, we recommend just the good wallets. Among the wallets that you mentioned on the table, only two wallets do not support password, I can not recommend such a wallet and I will not include it among.

Although , I will prefer a wallet to have a password which is separate from the device password.

[NotATether]

- There is no need to add APP LOCK as this feature is present in most phones and can be activated even if the software-wallet does not support it.

I disagree, it's very important to have an app lock as an extra protection. Also, take into account that some wallets are for desktop. And the app lock is usually related with an encryption of the keys on the device.

There's no effective security chip on desktops - the closest we have is Trusted Platform Module for PCs but this is not exposed by any well-known API so that means wallets and most other software can't make any use of it. On Macs there's the T2 security chip which I think has better exposure to software than the TPM, but what's the point of making a wallet only for Macs?

So app lock is going to be quite hard to find on desktop wallets (unless you are talking about auto-locking after inactivity).

[ABCbits]

Your website looks good. Few thoughts,

1. IMO width of column which contain wallet name could be smaller in order to show more column.
2. "Left button" and "Right button" for easier navigation doesn't show when i scroll down my browser. For referecne, i tried it with Tor Browser.
3. It's nice to see whether wallet support Bitcoin Signet (since it's less known than testnet3). Although IMO Liquid doesn't have to be mentioned since Bitcoin side-chain generally isn't popular, even among Bitcoin enthusiast.
4. Electrum doesn't create BIP 39 12/24 words, but rather Electrum Seed (see https://electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/seedphrase.html) so "12 words seed creation" for Electrum should be updated.

[thebitcoinhole]

Well done on the site!  It's a little difficult to fit all the categories even on a big screen, but that just means you did a thorough job.

A few notes on partial support:  Wasabi has partial support for QR code scanning (Windows and Linux only, not Mac) and partial support for Taproot (seed import and internal addresses only, external addresses are always Segwitv0).

Thanks for finding that. Fixed.

The reason I see password not to be included is because any wallet that did not include pin or password to access the wallet should not be recommended.

This is how we are doing on this forum, we recommend just the good wallets. Among the wallets that you mentioned on the table, only two wallets do not support password, I can not recommend such a wallet and I will not include it among.

Although , I will prefer a wallet to have a password which is separate from the device password.

I don't recommend all the hardware & software wallets that are listed in the website. I just compare them, so users have all the info to decide. In some cases, not having a password is not a big deal. For example Liana doesn't support password, but is a good wallet to learn about timelocks and miniscripts.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[Pmalek]

Here they say they support RBF and CPFP: https://docs.wasabiwallet.io/using-wasabi/Send.html#speed-up-or-cancel-transaction

That section of their docs was updated recently (23 August), so it's fair to assume that they do indeed support both RBF and CPFP. Based on how the support page explains it, the user doesn't have an option to choose whether to use RBF or CPFP. The software does it automatically, preferring to go for RBF and only then for CPFP if the first option isn't possible. That's quite an interesting approach. Does anyone know if there are other wallets that automate this process in the same way?

[thebitcoinhole]

Your website looks good. Few thoughts,

1. IMO width of column which contain wallet name could be smaller in order to show more column.
2. "Left button" and "Right button" for easier navigation doesn't show when i scroll down my browser. For referecne, i tried it with Tor Browser.
3. It's nice to see whether wallet support Bitcoin Signet (since it's less known than testnet3). Although IMO Liquid doesn't have to be mentioned since Bitcoin side-chain generally isn't popular, even among Bitcoin enthusiast.
4. Electrum doesn't create BIP 39 12/24 words, but rather Electrum Seed (see https://electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/seedphrase.html) so "12 words seed creation" for Electrum should be updated.

1. Yes. I changed that. Good suggestions
2. Are you having this issue only in mobile?
3. I think that row doesn't hurt and could be useful for some people
4. You are right. Fixed

Thanks for your feedback

[Charles-Tim]

Does anyone know if there are other wallets that automate this process in the same way?

It is just an explanation, that is how it works.

The wallet itself is supporting RBF, which means all transactions made on it will support that. If it is incoming (unconfirmed) transaction, you will be able to pump the fee which is what I think Wasabi is referring to. Electrum, Sparrow and Bluewallet can do that. Any wallet that has both RBF and CPFP can do that.

The above CPFP explained, if you are the receiver.

If you are the sender and you make a transaction on a wallet that does not support RBF (and if the transaction does not support full RBF) and you import the seed phrase on those wallets that support coin control, even if you do not see CPFP, you will still be able to pump the fee if the unconfirmed transaction has change address UTXO. Only what you will have to do is to transfer the change address UTXO or part of the change address UTXO to another address on your wallet using a higher fee that can get the two (I mean the child and the parent) transactions confirmed early.

[dkbit98]

For now I am focusing on btc-only wallets.

Technically speaking Green wallet is not really a pure Bitcoin wallet because it is working with Liquid chain, and Blockstream is advertising L-USDT all the time, even giving discounts for purchasing their Jade hardware wallet with this token.

[thebitcoinhole]

For now I am focusing on btc-only wallets.

Technically speaking Green wallet is not really a pure Bitcoin wallet because it is working with Liquid chain, and Blockstream is advertising L-USDT all the time, even giving discounts for purchasing their Jade hardware wallet with this token.

Yes, I know. But the same we could say from wallets supporting lightning.
Basically I am focusing on wallets that support only btc or anything on top of it.


Added Phoenix Wallet

https://thebitcoinhole.com/software-wallets/phoenix

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[Kruw]

Added Phoenix Wallet

https://thebitcoinhole.com/software-wallets/phoenix

I know this makes your job as maintainer more difficult, but Lightning wallets perhaps should be their category alongside software wallets and hardware wallets (though Lightning wallets are technically a subcategory of software wallets).  There's many different aspects to compare between Lightning wallets, such as their implementation, features such as splicing, taproot channels, BOLT12, LNURL, LSP provision, routing channels, trampoline routing, opening channels to any node, watchtower support, Nostr zapping, multipath payments, channel liquidity ads, and probably a ton of other things I can't think of off of the top of my head.

[thebitcoinhole]

Added Phoenix Wallet

https://thebitcoinhole.com/software-wallets/phoenix

I know this makes your job as maintainer more difficult, but Lightning wallets perhaps should be their category alongside software wallets and hardware wallets (though Lightning wallets are technically a subcategory of software wallets).  There's many different aspects to compare between Lightning wallets, such as their implementation, features such as splicing, taproot channels, BOLT12, LNURL, LSP provision, routing channels, trampoline routing, opening channels to any node, watchtower support, Nostr zapping, multipath payments, channel liquidity ads, and probably a ton of other things I can't think of off of the top of my head.

Yes, I know there are a lot of aspects related to Lightning wallets, but for now that will not be the priority. I haven't enough time to do that I want to prioritize btc on chain.

2. "Left button" and "Right button" for easier navigation doesn't show when i scroll down my browser. For referecne, i tried it with Tor Browser.
3. It's nice to see whether wallet support Bitcoin Signet (since it's less known than testnet3). Although IMO Liquid doesn't have to be mentioned since Bitcoin side-chain generally isn't popular, even among Bitcoin enthusiast.

2. Are you having this issue only in mobile?
3. I think that row doesn't hurt and could be useful for some people

2. I used desktop browser. I just did another check and found it happens on Firefox and Tor Browser. However it works fine on Chromium.
3. I see. In that case, you might want to check RSK which is another Bitcoin sidechain which is frequently mentioned when people talk about sidechain.

2. I tried on both browsers and I can't reproduce the issue
3. Yes, I will add a row for RSK as soon as one of the wallets listed support it.

[hugeblack]

Why not?

In most non-custodial or custodial wallets, the developer/company disclaims legal responsibility or any legal consequences such as losing coins or using them in dark activities, so knowing the company or headquarters will not make a difference.

For example, we have Sparrow, dated 2020, without a known company or headquarters compared to a wallet like blockchain.com, which was launched in 2011. They have a headquarters and a registered company. However, Sparrow is better than blockchain.com based on many metrics.

I disagree, it's very important to have an app lock as an extra protection. Also, take into account that some wallets are for desktop. And the app lock is usually related with an encryption of the keys on the device.

locking app different from encryption, in most cases the lock mechanism, whether it is a pin, password, fingerprint, or others, does not encrypt the data inside the application, but rather is necessary to protect against physical attacks.

If the wallet does not encrypt recovery files, there is no point in recommending it.

[Pmalek]

The wallet itself is supporting RBF, which means all transactions made on it will support that. If it is incoming (unconfirmed) transaction, you will be able to pump the fee which is what I think Wasabi is referring to. Electrum, Sparrow and Bluewallet can do that. Any wallet that has both RBF and CPFP can do that.

The above CPFP explained, if you are the receiver.

If you are the sender and you make a transaction on a wallet that does not support RBF (and if the transaction does not support full RBF) and you import the seed phrase on those wallets that support coin control, even if you do not see CPFP, you will still be able to pump the fee if the unconfirmed transaction has change address UTXO. Only what you will have to do is to transfer the change address UTXO or part of the change address UTXO to another address on your wallet using a higher fee that can get the two (I mean the child and the parent) transactions confirmed early.

I know the theory and how both RBF and CPFP work. I never had any need to use either option, though. If I send coins to myself, I am not worried about how long it will take and don't pay much in fees. If I am paying someone else, I pay more to avoid issues with stuck connections.

The point I was making is that if you take Electrum, for example, you can choose yourself whether you want to pump the fees with RBF or do a CPFP (if the conditions for that are met). With Electrum, you right-click on an unconfirmed UTXO and select CPFP if it can be done. Wasabi works differently and you can't choose apparently.   

[Kruw]

With Electrum, you right-click on an unconfirmed UTXO and select CPFP if it can be done. Wasabi works differently and you can't choose apparently.   

It's the same in Wasabi, you right click an unconfirmed transaction in your history and select "Speed Up Transaction".

[thebitcoinhole]

Why not?

In most non-custodial or custodial wallets, the developer/company disclaims legal responsibility or any legal consequences such as losing coins or using them in dark activities, so knowing the company or headquarters will not make a difference.

For example, we have Sparrow, dated 2020, without a known company or headquarters compared to a wallet like blockchain.com, which was launched in 2011. They have a headquarters and a registered company. However, Sparrow is better than blockchain.com based on many metrics.

But I am not saying that having a company behind is good or bad for a wallet. I consider is information that needs to be displayed. Some users are going to consider useful, others not.

locking app different from encryption, in most cases the lock mechanism, whether it is a pin, password, fingerprint, or others, does not encrypt the data inside the application, but rather is necessary to protect against physical attacks.

If the wallet does not encrypt recovery files, there is no point in recommending it.

That's why I display both features: app lock protection for one side, and encryption on other side. Both are important features, in my opinion.


Added new features to the software & hardware wallets comparison websites:
- Now you can see the license of each software wallet source code and hardware wallet firmware.
- Added lots of new filters

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[Pmalek]

It's the same in Wasabi, you right click an unconfirmed transaction in your history and select "Speed Up Transaction".

OK, but can a Wasabi wallet user decide what kind of speed up they want to do? Can they choose between RBF and CPFP themselves or does the software do it for them? Your docs section makes it sound like the Wasabi wallet makes the decision of what to do. Obviously, it's better to do an RBF, but it's good to know for clarity. With Electrum, I can do a CPFP if I want and control the change address or destination address.

[Kruw]

It's the same in Wasabi, you right click an unconfirmed transaction in your history and select "Speed Up Transaction".

OK, but can a Wasabi wallet user decide what kind of speed up they want to do? Can they choose between RBF and CPFP themselves or does the software do it for them? Your docs section makes it sound like the Wasabi wallet makes the decision of what to do. Obviously, it's better to do an RBF, but it's good to know for clarity. With Electrum, I can do a CPFP if I want and control the change address or destination address.

If it is an outgoing payment, RBF is automatically used for transaction speedup (since it is more blockspace efficient than CPFP).  If it is an incoming payment, CPFP is used (since it is the only possible option for speedup).  You could CPFP the original transaction instead of using RBF by spending the unconfirmed parent through the normal send workflow (not recommended, since you should coinjoin it first), but you are correct that there's not a CPFP option listed alongside RBF when RBF is available.

[Charles-Tim]

OK, but can a Wasabi wallet user decide what kind of speed up they want to do? Can they choose between RBF and CPFP themselves or does the software do it for them? Your docs section makes it sound like the Wasabi wallet makes the decision of what to do. Obviously, it's better to do an RBF, but it's good to know for clarity. With Electrum, I can do a CPFP if I want and control the change address or destination address.

I used Bluewallet and Electrum and they all work the same, also on Wasabi and other wallets that support both RBF and CPFP.

If you make transaction on wallet that support RBF and CPFP and you want to pump the fee, only RBF can be used to pump the fee for outgoing transaction.
For incoming (unconfirmed) transaction, you can not use RBF because only CPFP can be used.

On Electrum, this is how it is also.

But I think this is what Pmalek meant: that will the pump fee appear as CPFP in a way you will be able to differentiat it from RBF as it is on Electrum? I think you will not be able to see cancel transaction if it is CPFP because cancel transaction is still RBF. Also that someone can easily know that incoming unconfirmed transaction can not support RBF.





The other CPFP when you have unconfirmed change address UTXO transaction, you can only do that with a wallet that has coin control by spending the change address UTXO of the unconfirmed transaction.

[igor72]

The android version of electrum doesn't support Coin Control.

Electrum for android supports address freezing, which allows you to manage coins if your wallet is properly organized (each address is used once).

[Charles-Tim]

Electrum for android supports address freezing, which allows you to manage coins if your wallet is properly organized (each address is used once).

Coin control is different from address freezing. With address freezing, you will only be able to freeze the coins on an address or some addresses that you want to freeze. But with coin control, you can be able to freeze UTXOs of your choice. Coin control also allows you to spend the UTXO of you choice.