Coin Wallet - self-custodial open-source wallet. Discussion and News

[bitmover]

It's tough to reply on this forum, feels like we're back in 2005

i want to know what the extra fees are for, and who takes them.

This is a service fee.

What kind of services do you provide for this type of fee?

The service is provided by the miners.

They are charging for a service provided by someone else. 🤡

They are basically charging for ignorance/lack of attention of their users.

[coinwalletglobal]

Coin Wallet firmware has been elevated to v6.29.0, featuring improvements particularly relevant to hardware security. I checked the pertinent commit ^{"improve hardware keys ui"} and it seems that  UI now tells users when they have not registered any hardware security keys yet, instead of leaving that state blank. The OP will probably have more to say about this.

https://talkimg.com/images/2026/06/29/ULmFDW.png

Yes, you're right - in this patch we added some text for users. We also added an article to the support section. https://support.coin.space/hc/en-us/articles/360051635571-Hardware-security-keys-support

What kind of services do you provide for this type of fee?
What do you do differently from other wallets to have these fees?

This goes toward wallet development. And given that we've been around since 2015 - how exactly are other wallets any different?
We have a killer feature, but it's not related to bitcoin - it's about Monero, so I'm not sure it can be discussed here.

You have a point, but given that WalletScrutiny is also the go-to place for those who don't know how to check reproducible builds, I think it's worth reconsidering that part [in the long run, it might be beneficial for attracting more users (a win-win situation)].

We didn't have a great experience working with them, but we'll think about it again.

So declaring this wallet to be "free" is misleading

Don't mislead and change your tone.
First, you're wrong on this point "So declaring this wallet to be free" - where and when was that ever written?
Second, I already answered the question about the service fee and the links were in the very first replies, and I also answered about the number of blockchains - 11 out of 24. If you ignored those answers - please don't spam.

[joker_josue]

This goes toward wallet development. And given that we've been around since 2015 - how exactly are other wallets any different?
We have a killer feature, but it's not related to bitcoin - it's about Monero, so I'm not sure it can be discussed here.

Why not a donation system, instead of a direct fee?

When I used the test wallet I did in the past, it doesn't describe when the network fee and your commission fee is.
Currently, do these two pieces of information appear separately?

[bitmover]

This goes toward wallet development. And given that we've been around since 2015 - how exactly are other wallets any different?

I have not ever saw a wallet that charged users to make a transaction. This is completely different for any other wallet.

We have a killer feature, but it's not related to bitcoin - it's about Monero, so I'm not sure it can be discussed here.

You can discuss Monero here, no problem.

You should charge for this killer feature, not for bitcoin transactions, imo.

When I used the test wallet I did in the past, it doesn't describe when the network fee and your commission fee is.
Currently, do these two pieces of information appear separately?

Did you see the wallet fee when you made the transaction? was it clear in the screen?

I think it is very important to show users how much money are paid and what exactly is being paid.

[Zwei]

i want to know what the extra fees are for, and who takes them.

This is a service fee.

i don't think i have ever see a crypto wallet that charges 0.5% service fee for sending bitcoin transaction, and 0.5% service fee is fucking crazy.

and how exactly is it paid to you? does the wallet just add another address + the service fee when someone makes a transaction? that sounds like malware to me.
also, nowhere in the fee page that you say you charge a service fee, all you have is "transaction fee", bit misleading don't you think?

https://coin.space/all-about-fees/

This goes toward wallet development. And given that we've been around since 2015 - how exactly are other wallets any different?

I have not ever saw a wallet that charged users to make a transaction. This is completely different for any other wallet.

yeah, every other free wallet is either completely free, or they make their money through adding a swap feature where they get commission from every exchange.

[Forsyth Jones]

This goes toward wallet development. And given that we've been around since 2015 - how exactly are other wallets any different?
We have a killer feature, but it's not related to bitcoin - it's about Monero, so I'm not sure it can be discussed here.
----
Don't mislead and change your tone.
First, you're wrong on this point "So declaring this wallet to be free" - where and when was that ever written?
Second, I already answered the question about the service fee and the links were in the very first replies, and I also answered about the number of blockchains - 11 out of 24. If you ignored those answers - please don't spam.

I believe that's not the way to convince users to download the wallet, satscraper is not a spammer, he is a reputable member and most people here trust him given his history and reputation. If it's up to people to decide who to believe, who do you think they'll believe?

I think this issue of fees can be improved and you're probably thinking about that. It risks not being viable in the long term unless unsuspecting users use the wallet without knowing about these comission fees. What people are implying is that the extra commission isn't explicitly stated on the App or the website. I myself had difficulty get it all, as it's something I, at least, had never seen in the industry. Normally, the user only discovers this after the transaction has already been made and checked on the blockchain. That's the point I think people are highlighting here.

[bitmover]

This goes toward wallet development. And given that we've been around since 2015 - how exactly are other wallets any different?

The problem with such fee, is that satoshi is the one who developed this. Other wallets improved what he developed.
This is not something new. This is something someone else developed and for free.

[joker_josue]

i want to know what the extra fees are for, and who takes them.

This is a service fee.

i don't think i have ever see a crypto wallet that charges 0.5% service fee for sending bitcoin transaction, and 0.5% service fee is fucking crazy.

and how exactly is it paid to you? does the wallet just add another address + the service fee when someone makes a transaction? that sounds like malware to me.
also, nowhere in the fee page that you say you charge a service fee, all you have is "transaction fee", bit misleading don't you think?

https://coin.space/all-about-fees/

The website states that for some currencies, there is an additional fee on top of the network fee.


Currently, in addition to the network fee, making a Bitcoin transaction incurs a 0.5% transaction fee (min. $0.30, max. $100), plus a fixed fee of 0.0000192BTC.

I don't actually remember exactly, but the impression I got when I tested it a few months ago is that this fee is mixed with the network fee, meaning the total amount you'll pay for the transaction is shown.

[MasterGGG]

This goes toward wallet development. And given that we've been around since 2015 - how exactly are other wallets any different?

The problem with such fee, is that satoshi is the one who developed this. Other wallets improved what he developed.
This is not something new. This is something someone else developed and for free.

I understand the general frustration, but pragmatically speaking, it doesn’t really apply here.
Fruit grows for free on free land too, yet no one questions why we still pay for it.

The only real question is how clearly this fee was explained and shown to the user before the operation — or whether it was bundled into one combined number that included all fees together.
In any case, it’s their right to set that fee, and it’s your right not to use their product

[ABCbits]

i want to know what the extra fees are for, and who takes them.

This is a service fee.

i don't think i have ever see a crypto wallet that charges 0.5% service fee for sending bitcoin transaction, and 0.5% service fee is fucking crazy.

and how exactly is it paid to you? does the wallet just add another address + the service fee when someone makes a transaction? that sounds like malware to me.
also, nowhere in the fee page that you say you charge a service fee, all you have is "transaction fee", bit misleading don't you think?

https://coin.space/all-about-fees/

In addition, 0.5% of what? Total Bitcoin on all inputs? Total Bitcoin that sent to address not belong to the wallet? I also feel it's weird that some coin have no additional fee or different fee percentage.

[satscraper]

and how exactly is it paid to you? does the wallet just add another address + the service fee when someone makes a transaction? that sounds like malware to me.

Yeah, a chunk of every send goes to a cs-controlled address:

and the worse part of it is that users never see the cs-fee-relevant-address as a distinct line during signing transaction, they see only addresses to which they are sending and single combined fee. Just check https://github.com/CoinSpace/cs-bitcoin-wallet/blob/master/lib/TxBuilder.js  and https://github.com/CoinSpace/CoinSpace/blob/v6.29.0/web/src/views/Crypto/Send/CryptoSendStepConfirm.vue


P.S. I’ve already spent almost three days analyzing their code, and that’s enough for me. I don’t want to hear about this wallet anymore.

[bitmover]

In any case, it’s their right to set that fee, and it’s your right not to use their product

This is a software that slowly drains your wallet money without providing any service.

Only people who are unaware of how bitcoin works and how much costs to move money would use such wallet and pay for such fees.

and the worse part of it is that users never see the cs-fee-relevant-address as a distinct line during signing transaction, they see only addresses to which they are sending and single combined fee. Just check

Do you have a screenshot of the transaction being made and not clearly showing the fees and where your money goes to? Maybe joker_josue has

[Zwei]

In addition, 0.5% of what? Total Bitcoin on all inputs? Total Bitcoin that sent to address not belong to the wallet? I also feel it's weird that some coin have no additional fee or different fee percentage.

with the help of claud AI, i think i found the code for the fee (i could be wrong tho, if someone can double check this that would be great).
it looks like it's calculated based on the amount being sent, subject to the min/max service fee amount in USD.


but what's more interesting is that the fee % seems to be server-configurable and is not hard coded into the wallet code.
so the fee could be 0.5% one minute, then changed to 10% the next minute if OP wanted to.

and how exactly is it paid to you? does the wallet just add another address + the service fee when someone makes a transaction? that sounds like malware to me.

Yeah, a chunk of every send goes to a cs-controlled address:

and the worth part of it that users never see the cs-fee-relevant-address as a distinct line during signing transaction, they see only addresses to which they are sending and single combined fee. Just check https://github.com/CoinSpace/cs-bitcoin-wallet/blob/master/lib/TxBuilder.js  and https://github.com/CoinSpace/CoinSpace/blob/v6.29.0/web/src/views/Crypto/Send/CryptoSendStepConfirm.vue

so it is designed to be a hidden fee in the user interface, hmmm... i don't like that. even though this is open source and the fee is right there in the code, this is super deceptive.
tbh, i don't see why anyone aware of all this would use this wallet when there are better, completely free open-source alternatives with no hidden fees.

P.S. I’ve already spent almost three days analyzing their code, and that’s enough for me. I don’t want to hear about this wallet anymore.

thank you for taking the time to look into it  

Do you have a screenshot of the transaction being made and not clearly showing the fees and where your money goes to? Maybe joker_josue has

it does show the fee you are going to be paying + the amount sent, but it just say "fee", it doesn't break it down to network fee + service fee.

i tested this with 0.025 LTC input, and here are the screenshots:



the TX id: https://blockchair.com/litecoin/transaction/c1e664ee98f451a3a7b8190132164eee1f63cd7cce339b3efd5570bb3b6d0bce

litecoin transactions are super cheap, the network fee for this was only $0.00006, but with the service fees it was a $0.14 extra, and they just added their own address without even showing it or letting the user know.
you genuinely have to be so clueless to use this as your wallet after what's been found.

[satscraper]

but what's more interesting is that the fee % seems to be server-configurable and is not hard coded into the wallet code.

Right, it is fetched live from their own server

Code:

 url: 'api/v4/csfee',

Nice, this exactly fits their CsTransactionConfirm.vue component.

I don't have low-value coins like LTC or BCH, so I was reluctant to check it using my valuable sats, but you did it!

And you are right. It would be fairer to explicitly show users the full structure of the fee taken directly before they sign transactions. After all, they will learn this ^{using block explorer}after broadcast.

[joker_josue]

Do you have a screenshot of the transaction being made and not clearly showing the fees and where your money goes to? Maybe joker_josue has

I don't actually have it because I didn't save it. But, as @Zwei showed, the rate info appears all together, as if it were the normal network rate.

But since I still have the wallet data, I can test it again with more details. As soon as I have some time, I'll show you how Bitcoin transactions work on a Windows PC.

[bitmover]

it does show the fee you are going to be paying + the amount sent, but it just say "fee", it doesn't break it down to network fee + service fee.

i tested this with 0.025 LTC input, and here are the screenshots:


....
litecoin transactions are super cheap, the network fee for this was only $0.00006, but with the service fees it was a $0.14 extra, and they just added their own address without even showing it or letting the user know.

As screenshot show, the wallet is moving funds without user consent. User consent only to mining fees, not other fees.

I consider this a malicious software,  as it is moving funds from the owner of the wallet without user permission..

I decided to tag the account as high risk.

More context:

It's tough to reply on this forum, feels like we're back in 2005

i want to know what the extra fees are for, and who takes them.

This is a service fee.

What kind of services do you provide for this type of fee?

The service is provided by the miners.

They are charging for a service provided by someone else. 🤡

They are basically charging for ignorance/lack of attention of their users.

https://coin.space/all-about-fees/

[ABCbits]

What kind of services do you provide for this type of fee?
What do you do differently from other wallets to have these fees?

This goes toward wallet development. And given that we've been around since 2015 - how exactly are other wallets any different?
We have a killer feature, but it's not related to bitcoin - it's about Monero, so I'm not sure it can be discussed here.

AFAIK Coin Wallet is the only non-custodial wallet that charge fee when sending coin. It's only common on custodial wallet and exchange where they usually charge fixed withdraw/sending fee, but only use fraction of it for TX/network fee and take the rest. Some non-custodial wallet use different approach to earn money, such as
1. Integrate CEX/swap where they get a bit of money when their user use the feature.
2. Offer optional feature. for example, 2FA wallet on Electrum.
3. Showing ads, which occasionally found on mobile Bitcoin wallet.

the TX id: https://blockchair.com/litecoin/transaction/c1e664ee98f451a3a7b8190132164eee1f63cd7cce339b3efd5570bb3b6d0bce

litecoin transactions are super cheap, the network fee for this was only $0.00006, but with the service fees it was a $0.14 extra, and they just added their own address without even showing it or letting the user know.
you genuinely have to be so clueless to use this as your wallet after what's been found.

Could you screenshot page/tab that show history TX and page/tab that show detail of the TX? I'm curious how much information is shown on those.

[satscraper]

detail of the TX? I'm curious how much information is shown on those.

I have checked all vue scripts relevant to transaction history and found that the structure of the fee never surfaces to the user. For example, CryptoHistoryStepTransaction.vue has the same patterns as the script for Confirm page, i.e., no separate cs.fee-related line and no address field for it. So I am 99.9% sure that the fee split is not disclosed there either. I left 0.1% in case I am wrong, but I hope that Zwei confirms that I'm correct.

[Zwei]

the TX id: https://blockchair.com/litecoin/transaction/c1e664ee98f451a3a7b8190132164eee1f63cd7cce339b3efd5570bb3b6d0bce

litecoin transactions are super cheap, the network fee for this was only $0.00006, but with the service fees it was a $0.14 extra, and they just added their own address without even showing it or letting the user know.
you genuinely have to be so clueless to use this as your wallet after what's been found.

Could you screenshot page/tab that show history TX and page/tab that show detail of the TX? I'm curious how much information is shown on those.

not much info is shown really, there is just the "fee", and there is no mention or service fee or their address.
the only way someone would catch it is if they check the TX id on an explorer.



(embarrassingly i had to do it twice because i forgot to take screenshots the first time, so please act as if you don't see that)

I have checked all vue scripts relevant to transaction history and found that the structure of the fee never surfaces to the user. For example, CryptoHistoryStepTransaction.vue has the same patterns as the script for Confirm page, i.e., no separate cs.fee-related line and no address field for it. So I am 99.9% sure that the fee split is not disclosed there either. I left 0.1% in case I am wrong, but I hope that Zwei confirms that I'm correct.

you are not wrong.