Is private keys enough to call wallet non custodial?

[Emjay24]

Holding the private keys is the definition, but it is the minimum, not the whole picture. A wallet is genuinely non-custodial when it cannot move your coins without your signature and nothing else: no server-side freeze, no admin key over your funds. How the keys are generated matters too.

There is only one way to verify all of these, and that's if the wallet is open-source. Open-source non custodial wallets are considered the safest since the codes are verified by independent auditors, making it easier to find and report vulnerabilities as well as verify their non-custodial claims. I always prefer reputable bitcoin only wallets for my bitcoin and cold storage for my major holdings.

[AprilioMP]

I want to know because their are some non custodial wallet they have features like exchange. In trust wallet they have the buy and sell options. Does private keys completely makes a wallet as non custodial or their is more to this.

Even though I’m a bit late to the conversation, I want to reiterate that Trust Wallet is not a good wallet for storage. There’s no guarantee that your private keys are secure there. If a wallet offers trading features, it’s better to use a platform whose primary function is trading—that is, an exchange—rather than the wallet itself.
There are many factors to consider when using Trust Wallet. Remember, I’m not trying to say that Trust Wallet is bad, but many users have shared their experiences with it.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

Even though I’m a bit late to the conversation, I want to reiterate that Trust Wallet is not a good wallet for storage. There’s no guarantee that your private keys are secure there. If a wallet offers trading features, it’s better to use a platform whose primary function is trading—that is, an exchange—rather than the wallet itself.

It's not a good wallet to use, not only for storage because saying like you did can make people thinking like if they only use Trust wallet for swaps, it's good. It's only bad and not recommended for long term storage, and if people think this way, they're wrong and will make terrible practice.

Storage starts immediately at a time you fund a wallet, risk appears since that wallet topping up time. If you store your fund in a wallet a longer time, it has bigger risk especially with Trust wallet.

Fund storage needs to be done rightly with key management.
The dos and don'ts of bitcoin key management.

[Patikno]

I want to know because their are some non custodial wallet they have features like exchange. In trust wallet they have the buy and sell options. Does private keys completely makes a wallet as non custodial or their is more to this.

Essentially, a non-custodial wallet means you have full control over your wallet, and no one else can access it; provided you safeguard it properly. Beyond that, it depends on whether you choose to generate your wallet on a secure platform; this is why it is crucial to opt for a fully open-source wallet. With open-source wallets, you can inspect and verify the code, ensuring transparency regarding the programming behind the wallet. In contrast, with closed-source wallets, you cannot examine the hidden code. Therefore, please choose your wallet wisely.

For references, you can view a list of wallets, here :

➥ LIST Multicoin Open Source Wallets - by @dkbit98

➥ Bitcoin open source wallets that support replace-by-fee (RBF) - by @Charles-Tim ( You might need an open-source Bitcoin wallet; that supports Replace-by-Fee for Bitcoin transaction, and you can also find some very helpful guides in the thread )

By the way, you should also review these references carefully, as there may be updates regarding these wallets; that have not yet been reflected in the list.

[MisFoxie]

Even though I’m a bit late to the conversation, I want to reiterate that Trust Wallet is not a good wallet for storage. There’s no guarantee that your private keys are secure there. If a wallet offers trading features, it’s better to use a platform whose primary function is trading—that is, an exchange—rather than the wallet itself.
There are many factors to consider when using Trust Wallet. Remember, I’m not trying to say that Trust Wallet is bad, but many users have shared their experiences with it.

Personally I will not say Trust Wallet is bad since I have been using it for more than six years but of course it should be totally avoided as cold storage.

The private keys generated by open source and closed source wallets are almost equally safe if the code of the closed source wallet is safe and secure for the users since we will not be able to verify a close source wallets codes we should definitely avoid it. And it should also be known that open source does not always mean that it is good. You should always use wallets verified by experts.

There are some wallets I have seen that when you use their inbuilt swap feature they do not give any option to sign during the transaction they directly complete the swap. This seems weird to me.

[PostQuantumBTC]

Personally I will not say Trust Wallet is bad since I have been using it for more than six years but of course it should be totally avoided as cold storage.

Not that Trustwallet should be avoided as cold storage, it is not a cold wallet in any way.

Trustwallet has been the worst bitcoin wallet that I have used and the wallet has become something else like prediction markets and used for leverage trading than to be called a wallet.

The private keys generated by open source and closed source wallets are almost equally safe if the code of the closed source wallet is safe and secure for the users since we will not be able to verify a close source wallets codes we should definitely avoid it. And it should also be known that open source does not always mean that it is good. You should always use wallets verified by experts.

What kind of post is this? I can not use a wallet that I do not know what it is made up of.

[EL MOHA]

Personally I will not say Trust Wallet is bad since I have been using it for more than six years but of course it should be totally avoided as cold storage.

No body is actually saying Trustwallet is bad but even as a closed source wallet there far better wallets than the trust wallet and that’s why most people are saying you should actually ditch it for better ones.

The private keys generated by open source and closed source wallets are almost equally safe if the code of the closed source wallet is safe and secure for the users since we will not be able to verify a close source wallets codes we should definitely avoid it. And it should also be known that open source does not always mean that it is good. You should always use wallets verified by experts.

I think your are actually exposing the facts why you should run away from a closed source wallet, yes there is no single wallet that is totally secure because even a cold wallet which is open source can be compromised through phishing attacks. But with closed source wallet you don’t know what is happening behind the scene of such wallet, they can be extracting your seed phrase or private keys without your knowledge that’s why the key thing is go for verifiable wallet instead of just trusting.

There are some wallets I have seen that when you use their inbuilt swap feature they do not give any option to sign during the transaction they directly complete the swap. This seems weird to me.

Since they have your seed phrase and private key maybe this wallets actually have the wallet auto sign the transactions or even combines it with token approval and the manual click gets it signed

[KingsDen]

Trust Wallet is a non-custodial wallet, since you alone take control over your private key.

It's true that Trustwallet is a non-custodial wallet and it gives you control over your private keys, but there is no proof that you are the only owner of those private keys.
Trustwallet is a close-source wallet, and as I said in my previous post we don't know how the keys are generated.

So, number one is that it should be non-custodial and secondly it should be open source? I read a documentary why Trust wallet moved from Open code to closed code because people were copying and cloning their code. I don't know if this is reason enough, but what I know is that TW has been around for a while and their hasn't been issue of hacks or scam.

Even if tens and hundreds of people claim they know how the key of a certain wallet is generated, there can still be issues just as the coldcard that has issue that existed for 5 years.

I like open source and encourage everyone to embrace it, but some close source wallets like TW are also good.

[EL MOHA]

So, number one is that it should be non-custodial and secondly it should be open source? I read a documentary why Trust wallet moved from Open code to closed code because people were copying and cloning their code. I don't know if this is reason enough, but what I know is that TW has been around for a while and their hasn't been issue of hacks or scam.

I think you need to simply research about it, but trust wallet had actually been breached before and coins stolen from some users, it’s hard to see wallets that haven’t been breached but for trust wallet it’s common for them. As for the open source code to closed source code because of developers copying codes it’s definitely a useless excuse because many wallets are open source and it doesn’t takes anything away from it, it’s only those who platforms who are around for money that fears competition.

Even if tens and hundreds of people claim they know how the key of a certain wallet is generated, there can still be issues just as the coldcard that has issue that existed for 5 years.

I think what you need to understand is that it’s because of situation that surrounds this coldcard hack that should even Chase someone away from trust wallet, they also moved from open source to source verifiable. With open source you have more people looking at your codes even if it is to copy something and they can identify errors in the code faster than only your team doing that

[MusaMohamed]

I think you need to simply research about it, but trust wallet had actually been breached before and coins stolen from some users, it’s hard to see wallets that haven’t been breached but for trust wallet it’s common for them. As for the open source code to closed source code because of developers copying codes it’s definitely a useless excuse because many wallets are open source and it doesn’t takes anything away from it, it’s only those who platforms who are around for money that fears competition.

Trust wallet was hacked in the past, with about $7M stolen by hackers.
Trust wallet chrome extension bug.

It's a close source wallet and it's not recommended to use while you can use Metamask wallet or Myetherwallet, and other wallets that are open source. Trust wallet can receive trust by community because it was acquired by Binance years ago. People would think that with Binance behind, Trust wallet can compensate their users with any hacks in the future but it's not a careful practice. You can not leave all things and your money on Binance, with assumption that they will fully compensate users in case of security incidents and hacks.

[EarnOnVictor]

I want to know because their are some non custodial wallet they have features like exchange. In trust wallet they have the buy and sell options. Does private keys completely makes a wallet as non custodial or their is more to this.

This is a justifiable concern, and personally, I've suspected that before, which is not limited to buying/selling of crypto assets, and even staking. But in the end, so long as they do not have your seed phrases, they are still non-custodial wallets, and nothing can change that, regardless of what they are doing on their apps. I only see them building businesses around it through a third-party integration, and so long as they can't freeze your account, confiscate your money, etc, you are in control, and you have the options to subscribe to their integrated add-ons or avoid it entirely.

[KingsDen]

So, number one is that it should be non-custodial and secondly it should be open source? I read a documentary why Trust wallet moved from Open code to closed code because people were copying and cloning their code. I don't know if this is reason enough, but what I know is that TW has been around for a while and their hasn't been issue of hacks or scam.

I think you need to simply research about it, but trust wallet had actually been breached before and coins stolen from some users, it’s hard to see wallets that haven’t been breached but for trust wallet it’s common for them. As for the open source code to closed source code because of developers copying codes it’s definitely a useless excuse because many wallets are open source and it doesn’t takes anything away from it, it’s only those who platforms who are around for money that fears competition.

Okay, I'll check about it. If they have been breached, that means it happened long before 2021 when I joined the crypto industry.
I am not in anyway projecting a closed source code wallet over an open source code wallet, but what I am saying is that if they have been around for some years and nothing serious has happened, they are not completely bad and it doesn't mean they are completely safe.

I agree that their reason of converting to close source is somewhat useless and selfish per say

...Trust wallet can receive trust by community because it was acquired by Binance years ago. People would think that with Binance behind, Trust wallet can compensate their users with any hacks in the future but it's not a careful practice.

This is simply a dumb reason to trust Trust wallet, Binance security funds can only cover Binance users and not non custodial wallet users

[hosemary]

Okay, I'll check about it. If they have been breached, that means it happened long before 2021 when I joined the crypto industry.

Did you visit the link MusaMohamed shared in this post?
The incident happened less than a year ago.

It may be worth mentioning that the issue didn't affect their mobile wallet users, but only those who had the Trustwallet extension installed on Chrome browser.

[Cookdata]

Okay, I'll check about it. If they have been breached, that means it happened long before 2021 when I joined the crypto industry.
I am not in anyway projecting a closed source code wallet over an open source code wallet, but what I am saying is that if they have been around for some years and nothing serious has happened, they are not completely bad and it doesn't mean they are completely safe.

I agree that their reason of converting to close source is somewhat useless and selfish per say

I still remember the day people were crying and tagging CZ on Christmas day last year, many Trust wallet extension users were complaining of wallet drain without interaction with any web. A bug was reported to be stealing users data and a new version was roll out. Unfortunately, $7m was drained across different wallets, the Trust wallet team promised to reimburse affected users and they posted here on their telegram channel, about 95% of users were reimbursed at that time.

...Trust wallet can receive trust by community because it was acquired by Binance years ago. People would think that with Binance behind, Trust wallet can compensate their users with any hacks in the future but it's not a careful practice.

This is simply a dumb reason to trust Trust wallet, Binance security funds can only cover Binance users and not non custodial wallet users

Binance is the parent company of Trust wallet, whatever happen to Trust wallet will trace back to Binance that is why it's their responsibility to handle most of the cases. However, their commitment to serving users should not make anyone to rely on Trust wallet. There are many users that have experienced losses that they can't explain themselves but nobody could help. It's better to use what is transparent to some degree to you and others than trust what you don't know.