Pavel Durov said Telegram noncustodial wallet is coming

[Oshosondy]

I saw this on the news, I do not know if this is truly him or not, but I do not think it will be another person.

https://t.me/durov/533

What that can not be true is that he said the native noncustodial wallet will be zero transaction fee for transactions which can not be true.

What do you think?

[Zaguru12]

What that can not be true is that he said the native noncustodial wallet will be zero transaction fee for transactions which can not be true.

What do you think?

Technically I think it’s possible, can it be true depends on a test. A network can actually be network fee free and you can actually design a wallet to also allow transactions without network fee to propagate.

My assumption is base on bitcoin network, do you know that a transaction without paying any fee can technically go through in bitcoin if the miner actually allows it and then the wallet allows transactions to broadcast too without paying fees. The reason why we don’t see this is because miners prioritize transactions base on fees and the wallets are usually connected to this nodes and they are designed not allow it but it is definitely possible.

Now for Duro (Telegram) who is like the owner of the TON network (ideologically) can design a wallet to allow zero fee transactions and also urge the network to propagate those transactions too

[Oshosondy]

What do you think?

It is just for marketing or whatever he wants to achieve with the it, it is not true. I may be wrong, we are going to later see it, but that will only be Ton and its tokens.

Transaction on Gram (Ton) network is not fee. Also there are other coins on the present Telegram wallet and bitcoin and many other coins are there. It will also be on the native noncustodial wallet sooner or later.

Technically I think it’s possible, can it be true depends on a test. A network can actually be network fee free and you can actually design a wallet to also allow transactions without network fee to propagate.

My assumption is base on bitcoin network, do you know that a transaction without paying any fee can technically go through in bitcoin if the miner actually allows it and then the wallet allows transactions to broadcast too without paying fees. The reason why we don’t see this is because miners prioritize transactions base on fees and the wallets are usually connected to this nodes and they are designed not allow it but it is definitely possible.

Now for Duro (Telegram) who is like the owner of the TON network (ideologically) can design a wallet to allow zero fee transactions and also urge the network to propagate those transactions too

Maybe, but for now, Gram network is not free.

I know it is possible. Plama (USDT0) is an example of network with no fee needed.

About the bitcoin blockchain, I know that transaction can be free if miner accepts it but will a miner accept zero fee transaction? That is not likely at all and you will need to use a full node wallet to make the transaction because light clients accept at least > 0 fee.

[Italian Panic]

I like anything that helps drive adoption, and I appreciate that Durov wants to create a wallet he believes is the future. However, there are a few points that need clarifying:
- Gram will be a rebranding of TON; it’s unclear whether the supply will be revised
- Telegram isn’t fully private because you can sign up if you have a phone number, you can use temporary ones, but is it worth it?
- He doesn’t seem to have mentioned any integration with Bitcoin, and you can’t create a wallet without Bitcoin; at the very least, a swap system would be needed because if people get TON, they’ll want Bitcoin.

I’m interested in the privacy aspect; we’ll see how they develop it.

[Mia Chloe]

~SNIP

Well I don't know exactly how true this news actually is but the truth is the chances that I'll recommend that wallet or make use of it by default is actually near zero. Telegram recently integrated a wallet in their software and it was custodial. There's basically gonna be no point making a non custodial wallet if it is still not going to be open source.

If their promotions and ideas are properly projected there's a high chance they are gonna get a good influx of users at first but if it's barely different from the current one there is gonna be a decline.

[Cookdata]

I saw this on the news, I do not know if this is truly him or not, but I do not think it will be another person.

https://t.me/durov/533

What that can not be true is that he said the native noncustodial wallet will be zero transaction fee for transactions which can not be true.

What do you think?

What I think? He is a con artist. Same guy that was riding tap tap projects all of sudden think non custodial wallet are the best, I'm not sure what interested him now, he could have started from when he launched Telegram wallet since he cared much about privacy but instead he requested for kyc, users with funds that couldn't kyc couldn't access their coins, very useless guy. A guy that was arrested in France that says he cared about privacy should know things to prioritize, he is doing now what should have been in the beginning.

The most expected he can do with this wallet thing is to promote Gram transaction with zero fee. There was a time Ton was offering free transactions on some coins but were stopped at some point. This is going to be an indirect exposure of Gram network to telegram users since they have rebranded from Ton to Gram. There is nothing new in what he is going to do, more scammers on his platform are going to eat good with what he want to create.

[PX-Z]

Its for the telegram token, im sure it's possible to transition from custodial to non-custodial even using the same telegram app.

But as for the "instant zero-fee" im not so sure but if they (as company) will cover it along with lines of codes i guess that's really possible.

[rat03gopoh]

The message was too brief to address the big questions of achieving 0 fees on every blockchain. I think it's hyperbolic marketing unless he wants to subsidize every transaction his wallet users make across multiple networks, or go the classic approach with TON-based wrapped tokens, as he clearly has the power to change the protocol. I think he'll use the second approach to facilitate "billions of users".

[nc50lc]

https://t.me/durov/533
-snip-
What do you think?

Perhaps the three sentences don't represent a single wallet or those are about three separate features of a single wallet.

For the middle part, that lightning emoji may be a clue?
They can potentially setup something similar to a lightning node with zero routing fee, then route all their clients channels' payments though it.
Maybe something like other "semi-custodial" lightning wallets do where the keys are only accessible to the user but the channels are managed by the wallet backend.

It's zero fee and instant,
But the zero fee is limited to the channels that they manage and being self-custodial is questionable.

That or it's a separate feature for a custodial part (where zero fee for in-platform transactions is easy to implement) of a non-custodial wallet.

[m2017]

I saw this on the news, I do not know if this is truly him or not, but I do not think it will be another person.

https://t.me/durov/533

What that can not be true is that he said the native noncustodial wallet will be zero transaction fee for transactions which can not be true.

What do you think?

Durov claims this will be a non-custodial wallet (access keys will be held only by the user), but it will also be integrated into the messenger. Doesn't this seem like another PR stunt by Durov, or is he once again misrepresenting or manipulating the facts, distorting them for the sake of PR (like claiming his messenger is confidential, secure, etc. )?

If transaction fees are zero, someone will still have to pay for it. The question is, who? Durov, out of his own pocket? I'd look at it in the context of 1 billion users.

Don't take this guy's words literally. Things are never what they seem. I'm sure this is another PR stunt to warm up the public, considering that the release date has not been announced.

What will happen to this wallet if the SEC turns its attention to Durov's creations again?

[Charles-Tim]

Durov claims this will be a non-custodial wallet (access keys will be held only by the user), but it will also be integrated into the messenger. Doesn't this seem like another PR stunt by Durov, or is he once again misrepresenting or manipulating the facts, distorting them for the sake of PR (like claiming his messenger is confidential, secure, etc. )?

There will be no privacy. This is a kind of wallet that people should just stay away from. Another thing is that it will even be a close source wallet. What if they have a backdoor?

If transaction fees are zero, someone will still have to pay for it. The question is, who? Durov, out of his own pocket? I'd look at it in the context of 1 billion users.

Also what if they started with zero fee, but they later change it and fee are later charged. This is how marketing is.

[MasterGGG]

What that can not be true is that he said the native noncustodial wallet will be zero transaction fee for transactions which can not be true.

What do you think?

Technically I think it’s possible, can it be true depends on a test. A network can actually be network fee free and you can actually design a wallet to also allow transactions without network fee to propagate.

This only works if every client runs as its own verification node. In classic PoS or PoW that's just not possible — unless Durov personally foots the entire validator bill. Which gets you a non-custodial wallet, sure, but with all validators concentrated in one pair of hands

[Lucius]

After Durov was captured in France and then mysteriously released, anyone with a bit of common sense who used Telegram with the belief that they had privacy stopped believing in it. If the French got a backdoor into the app, I have no doubt they shared it with some allies.

Besides, aren't there already hundreds of mobile crypto wallets with which you can send all possible coins/tokens - why would one have to be integrated into a messenger app? Considering that this app is a haven for scammers, that's just one more reason why it's a bad idea.