@thebitcoinhole
Maybe you need to start adding more software wallets that support Silent Payments.
One of them is Silentium web wallet, and another one released recently in called DanaWallet, but this is still in early alpha development stages.
https://www.nobsbitcoin.com/dana-wallet-v0-1-0-alpha/
https://www.nobsbitcoin.com/silentium-silent-payments/
Topic: 16 Bitcoin Software Wallets, compared feature by feature (Read 1423 times)
@thebitcoinhole can you add another column on your website for wallets that support Taproot Multi-sig?
According to a source I found while searching, it seems that Coldcard's Edge firmware supports Taproot multi-sig. It's available both for the Q and Mk4 models. It's a type of experimental firmware I guess. It's not as tested as their standard releases. According to a different source, Muun wallet also support Taproot multisig. Hi, not sure if I am following you. We already have taproot and multisig rows on software and hardware wallets comparisons. What do you exactly need?
I didn't test this myself, but according to post from one forum member, many wallets are not yet supporting multisig setup with taproot addresses.He is not the only one claiming this, I also saw several discussions about this topic in social media before.
It seems that the mainstream Bitcoin multisig wallets like Electrum, Sparrow, and Specter do not yet support Taproot multisig.
I even asked this question to Brave AI and this is what was replied:
Code:
Design and Implementation of Multisig Taproot Wallets
Based on the provided search results, here’s a summary of the current state and future directions for multisig Taproot wallets:
Lack of Standardization: There is no standardized multisig Taproot wallet implementation yet. MuSig, a Schnorr key aggregation technique, is not yet standardized. BIPs 340 and 341 cover the introduction and use of Schnorr keys and Taproot spending rules, but they do not include standardized Taproot multisig wallets.
Hardware Wallet Implementations: Hardware wallet companies, such as Trezor, Ledger, and Coldcard, are working on implementing Taproot multisig wallets, but it’s a non-formal social standard. The Trezor team has been in contact with Casa and Unchained, and TBD on what other hardware wallet companies will do.
Software Wallet Implementations: Sparrow Wallet has not announced plans to support Taproot multisig wallets. Unchained has been discussing and planning for multisig Taproot wallets, but it’s a lengthy process, and they might take detours or hold off on implementation based on what they discover and what benefits their clients.
Research and Development: There are ongoing research and development efforts, such as the taproot-workshop GitHub repository, which provides a 3.1 degrading multisig case study. This project aims to explore Taproot descriptors and spending paths.
Future Directions: To achieve standardized multisig Taproot wallets, coordination between wallet developers and advisors is necessary. Unchained is leading the way in defining BCPs for multisig on Taproot, and hardware wallet vendors are working together to implement Taproot multisig wallets.
Key Takeaways:
No standardized multisig Taproot wallet implementation exists yet.
Hardware wallet companies are working on implementing Taproot multisig wallets, but it’s a non-formal social standard.
Software wallet implementations, such as Sparrow Wallet, have not announced plans to support Taproot multisig wallets.
Research and development efforts are ongoing, and Unchained is leading the way in defining BCPs for multisig on Taproot.
Coordination between wallet developers and advisors is necessary to achieve standardized multisig Taproot wallets.
Recommendations:
Follow updates from hardware wallet companies, such as Trezor, Ledger, and Coldcard, on their Taproot multisig wallet implementations.
Monitor Unchained’s progress on defining BCPs for multisig on Taproot and potential software wallet implementations.
Keep an eye on research and development efforts, such as the taproot-workshop GitHub repository, for insights into Taproot descriptors and spending paths.
Encourage coordination between wallet developers and advisors to achieve standardized multisig Taproot wallets.
Based on the provided search results, here’s a summary of the current state and future directions for multisig Taproot wallets:
Lack of Standardization: There is no standardized multisig Taproot wallet implementation yet. MuSig, a Schnorr key aggregation technique, is not yet standardized. BIPs 340 and 341 cover the introduction and use of Schnorr keys and Taproot spending rules, but they do not include standardized Taproot multisig wallets.
Hardware Wallet Implementations: Hardware wallet companies, such as Trezor, Ledger, and Coldcard, are working on implementing Taproot multisig wallets, but it’s a non-formal social standard. The Trezor team has been in contact with Casa and Unchained, and TBD on what other hardware wallet companies will do.
Software Wallet Implementations: Sparrow Wallet has not announced plans to support Taproot multisig wallets. Unchained has been discussing and planning for multisig Taproot wallets, but it’s a lengthy process, and they might take detours or hold off on implementation based on what they discover and what benefits their clients.
Research and Development: There are ongoing research and development efforts, such as the taproot-workshop GitHub repository, which provides a 3.1 degrading multisig case study. This project aims to explore Taproot descriptors and spending paths.
Future Directions: To achieve standardized multisig Taproot wallets, coordination between wallet developers and advisors is necessary. Unchained is leading the way in defining BCPs for multisig on Taproot, and hardware wallet vendors are working together to implement Taproot multisig wallets.
Key Takeaways:
No standardized multisig Taproot wallet implementation exists yet.
Hardware wallet companies are working on implementing Taproot multisig wallets, but it’s a non-formal social standard.
Software wallet implementations, such as Sparrow Wallet, have not announced plans to support Taproot multisig wallets.
Research and development efforts are ongoing, and Unchained is leading the way in defining BCPs for multisig on Taproot.
Coordination between wallet developers and advisors is necessary to achieve standardized multisig Taproot wallets.
Recommendations:
Follow updates from hardware wallet companies, such as Trezor, Ledger, and Coldcard, on their Taproot multisig wallet implementations.
Monitor Unchained’s progress on defining BCPs for multisig on Taproot and potential software wallet implementations.
Keep an eye on research and development efforts, such as the taproot-workshop GitHub repository, for insights into Taproot descriptors and spending paths.
Encourage coordination between wallet developers and advisors to achieve standardized multisig Taproot wallets.
@thebitcoinhole can you add another column on your website for wallets that support Taproot Multi-sig?
One forum member asked this question and I am not sure what wallet support that (both software and hardware).
Thanks in advance.
One forum member asked this question and I am not sure what wallet support that (both software and hardware).
Thanks in advance.
Hi, not sure if I am following you. We already have taproot and multisig rows on software and hardware wallets comparisons. What do you exactly need?
@thebitcoinhole can you add another column on your website for wallets that support Taproot Multi-sig?
One forum member asked this question and I am not sure what wallet support that (both software and hardware).
Thanks in advance.
One forum member asked this question and I am not sure what wallet support that (both software and hardware).
Thanks in advance.
Added Zeus Wallet.
Good catch. Thanks. Confirmed on the release notes that all the models are supporting taproot.
Fixed.
Fixed.
I think you need to make few small corrections for Safepal hardware wallets, since they are now apparently supporting Taproot addresses.
I don't know if all devices are supported and I don't own Safepal wallets to confirm this myself.
I don't know if all devices are supported and I don't own Safepal wallets to confirm this myself.
Added Bitcoin Core to the website, now comparing 22 different Bitcoin Software Wallets.
Strange that Bitcon Core was not listed all this time 
I think you need to make few small corrections for Safepal hardware wallets, since they are now apparently supporting Taproot addresses.
I don't know if all devices are supported and I don't own Safepal wallets to confirm this myself.
Credits goes to:
Somehow, I forgot to mention that SafePal also added support for Taproot addresses back in December of last year [credit goes to @taufik123 for this post].
- A walk-through from SafePal.
- A walk-through from SafePal.
Added Bitcoin Core to the website, now comparing 22 different Bitcoin Software Wallets.
There is a section for web wallets, "Web support", and mutiny is listed there. Regarding browser extension, do you think there is any wallet to recommend? It seems a bit insecure to use a browser extension as a wallet.
I don't like recommending web wallets and browser extensions but some people could find them useful, especially for Lightning Network.There is Alby Bitcoin Lightning Wallet extension that is more popular, and I think even some hardware wallets have browser extensions like OneKey, Safepal and maybe others.
It should be also mentioned as a warning that scammers often create fake extensions, this happened with Trezor and ledger I think.
Yes, not planned to start adding crap. But, some people think that when a new wallet is added I am recommending it, and that's not true. I wouldn't recommend most of the hardware/software wallets listed. I think the website should have good and no so good products, so people can learn why they are not good alternatives. The cell colors should help people to decide wisely.
I can say the same thing for all my list of wallets, and I am trying to be neutral as much as possible.There are more wallets that I don't like and I don't recommend to anyone but I added all of them in my topic for secure elements.
Getting back on topic for Software wallets.
There is one mobile wallet I found and it's missing from your website:
https://wallby.app/
What do you think about adding categories for Web wallets and browser extension wallets?
First time I hear about wallby. I am adding it to my backlog, thanks.
There is a section for web wallets, "Web support", and mutiny is listed there. Regarding browser extension, do you think there is any wallet to recommend? It seems a bit insecure to use a browser extension as a wallet.
Yes, not planned to start adding crap. But, some people think that when a new wallet is added I am recommending it, and that's not true. I wouldn't recommend most of the hardware/software wallets listed. I think the website should have good and no so good products, so people can learn why they are not good alternatives. The cell colors should help people to decide wisely.
I can say the same thing for all my list of wallets, and I am trying to be neutral as much as possible.There are more wallets that I don't like and I don't recommend to anyone but I added all of them in my topic for secure elements.
Getting back on topic for Software wallets.
There is one mobile wallet I found and it's missing from your website:
https://wallby.app/
What do you think about adding categories for Web wallets and browser extension wallets?
Yes, but not sure yet if this is a good decision or not for the website. I will see what happens. I added a new Btc Only row so it's clear if the wallet is multicoin or not.
It is a good idea, just don't go crazy and start adding bunch of crap like ''trust wallet'' and similar stuff.There is a demand for multi-coin wallets and if we don't provide solid alternatives people will continue to use closed source junk.
Another good example is Aqua wallet that is Bitcoin only, but they support Lightning and Liquid network with L-BTC and L-USDT and confidential transactions.
Yes, not planned to start adding crap. But, some people think that when a new wallet is added I am recommending it, and that's not true. I wouldn't recommend most of the hardware/software wallets listed. I think the website should have good and no so good products, so people can learn why they are not good alternatives. The cell colors should help people to decide wisely.
Yes, but not sure yet if this is a good decision or not for the website. I will see what happens. I added a new Btc Only row so it's clear if the wallet is multicoin or not.
It is a good idea, just don't go crazy and start adding bunch of crap like ''trust wallet'' and similar stuff.There is a demand for multi-coin wallets and if we don't provide solid alternatives people will continue to use closed source junk.
Another good example is Aqua wallet that is Bitcoin only, but they support Lightning and Liquid network with L-BTC and L-USDT and confidential transactions.
Hi. Stack Wallet was added to the website !!!
I completely forgot they existed and from what I'm seeing at the moment, it appears that they've abandoned their Stack Duo [a bit disappointed to see they've chosen to focus more on a wallet with some shitcoins, as opposed to the one with less attack surface]!
Yes, right now the decision is to only compare hardware/software wallets with bitcoin mainnet support, but marking as something good if the wallet is bitcoin only. In general I think that bitcoin only products have better quality and technology but a wallet with shitcoins inside could appear and be superior in most of the categories. Another important subject here is that lots of countries use stable coins as an intermediate step to buy/sell bitcoin, so displaying wallets with stable coins support seems to be useful.
Regarding the ratings. I try to be as neutral as possible. I know that the green, yellow and red colors are not neutral, but I tried to recommend the best practices followed by the community. Adding ratings is not easy, I have an idea in mind that could work but I didn't decide if implement it or not yet. Basically the idea is to use those colors to assign points (2 points for green cells and 1 point for yellow cells) to each wallet.
It seems to me that if we are able to filter the wallets (which the "networks" filtering area seems to allow), then so long as the minimum requirement for the wallet to be eligible to be on the website is that the wallet has to support either "Bitcoin Mainnet" or something like lightning.. and yeah, I don't really claim to be smart enough to know if something is creating another coin or is ONLY pegging to bitcoin mainnet without any meaningful increase in the bitcoin supply.. except maybe there could be some ambiguity in regards to something like millisats or whatever... but that does not really seem to be material in my thinking.
Your network filter categories seem to be somewhat limited, so maybe in that sense you are mostly focusing on bitcoin versus shitcoin and everything other than bitcoin is treated as a shitcoin except Bitcoin Testnet and Liquid.., and so that does seem to be a design choice that somewhat shows the focus.. but there still could be some value in distinguishing various dollar-based stable coins.. but yeah it also seems to be a potentially slippery slope, so it could be that you have already figured out a balance that you consider to be sufficient.
I remember that you have already stated that you don't want to get into the business of rating, yet we still know that some people who are brand new to bitcoin they are going to be really dumb when it comes to bitcoin wallet trade-offs, and they may also become quite overwhelmed by having so many wallet choices, and from their point of view, all they need is one.. maybe one hardware wallet and maybe one or two software (or phone/mobile based) wallets.
It could be possible to have a filter that shows if the wallet has been rated by some third party.. but yeah, that could be a slippery slope too.. so I understand your potential ongoing reluctance in the recommendation and/or ratings direction... even though there could be some interpretation of ratings if we are trying to define what the Firmware filters mean.. the difference between source-available, open source, and/or reproducibility of builds is a potentially changing dynamic regarding how to define some of the terms.. including questions about whether any wallet with a secure element can be open source, at least right now there remains ambiguities and I am not sure if ratings would necessarily help with those kinds of concerns that any of us might have but even more so for the newer coiner trying to figure out these trade-offs and preferences.
Regarding the ratings. I try to be as neutral as possible. I know that the green, yellow and red colors are not neutral, but I tried to recommend the best practices followed by the community. Adding ratings is not easy, I have an idea in mind that could work but I didn't decide if implement it or not yet. Basically the idea is to use those colors to assign points (2 points for green cells and 1 point for yellow cells) to each wallet.
It seems to me that if we are able to filter the wallets (which the "networks" filtering area seems to allow), then so long as the minimum requirement for the wallet to be eligible to be on the website is that the wallet has to support either "Bitcoin Mainnet" or something like lightning.. and yeah, I don't really claim to be smart enough to know if something is creating another coin or is ONLY pegging to bitcoin mainnet without any meaningful increase in the bitcoin supply.. except maybe there could be some ambiguity in regards to something like millisats or whatever... but that does not really seem to be material in my thinking.
Your network filter categories seem to be somewhat limited, so maybe in that sense you are mostly focusing on bitcoin versus shitcoin and everything other than bitcoin is treated as a shitcoin except Bitcoin Testnet and Liquid.., and so that does seem to be a design choice that somewhat shows the focus.. but there still could be some value in distinguishing various dollar-based stable coins.. but yeah it also seems to be a potentially slippery slope, so it could be that you have already figured out a balance that you consider to be sufficient.
I remember that you have already stated that you don't want to get into the business of rating, yet we still know that some people who are brand new to bitcoin they are going to be really dumb when it comes to bitcoin wallet trade-offs, and they may also become quite overwhelmed by having so many wallet choices, and from their point of view, all they need is one.. maybe one hardware wallet and maybe one or two software (or phone/mobile based) wallets.
It could be possible to have a filter that shows if the wallet has been rated by some third party.. but yeah, that could be a slippery slope too.. so I understand your potential ongoing reluctance in the recommendation and/or ratings direction... even though there could be some interpretation of ratings if we are trying to define what the Firmware filters mean.. the difference between source-available, open source, and/or reproducibility of builds is a potentially changing dynamic regarding how to define some of the terms.. including questions about whether any wallet with a secure element can be open source, at least right now there remains ambiguities and I am not sure if ratings would necessarily help with those kinds of concerns that any of us might have but even more so for the newer coiner trying to figure out these trade-offs and preferences.
You finally decided to start adding multicoin wallets from now on? 
Yes, but not sure yet if this is a good decision or not for the website. I will see what happens. I added a new Btc Only row so it's clear if the wallet is multicoin or not.It seems to me that if we are able to filter the wallets (which the "networks" filtering area seems to allow), then so long as the minimum requirement for the wallet to be eligible to be on the website is that the wallet has to support either "Bitcoin Mainnet" or something like lightning.. and yeah, I don't really claim to be smart enough to know if something is creating another coin or is ONLY pegging to bitcoin mainnet without any meaningful increase in the bitcoin supply.. except maybe there could be some ambiguity in regards to something like millisats or whatever... but that does not really seem to be material in my thinking.
Your network filter categories seem to be somewhat limited, so maybe in that sense you are mostly focusing on bitcoin versus shitcoin and everything other than bitcoin is treated as a shitcoin except Bitcoin Testnet and Liquid.., and so that does seem to be a design choice that somewhat shows the focus.. but there still could be some value in distinguishing various dollar-based stable coins.. but yeah it also seems to be a potentially slippery slope, so it could be that you have already figured out a balance that you consider to be sufficient.
I remember that you have already stated that you don't want to get into the business of rating, yet we still know that some people who are brand new to bitcoin they are going to be really dumb when it comes to bitcoin wallet trade-offs, and they may also become quite overwhelmed by having so many wallet choices, and from their point of view, all they need is one.. maybe one hardware wallet and maybe one or two software (or phone/mobile based) wallets.
It could be possible to have a filter that shows if the wallet has been rated by some third party.. but yeah, that could be a slippery slope too.. so I understand your potential ongoing reluctance in the recommendation and/or ratings direction... even though there could be some interpretation of ratings if we are trying to define what the Firmware filters mean.. the difference between source-available, open source, and/or reproducibility of builds is a potentially changing dynamic regarding how to define some of the terms.. including questions about whether any wallet with a secure element can be open source, at least right now there remains ambiguities and I am not sure if ratings would necessarily help with those kinds of concerns that any of us might have but even more so for the newer coiner trying to figure out these trade-offs and preferences.
You finally decided to start adding multicoin wallets from now on?
Yes, but not sure yet if this is a good decision or not for the website. I will see what happens. I added a new Btc Only row so it's clear if the wallet is multicoin or not. Hi. Stack Wallet was added to the website !!!
You finally decided to start adding multicoin wallets from now on? Stack wallet is not bad, but it feels to me like it is still in beta phase, especially desktop version that is randomly crashing on me, and it doesn't support monero.
Good thing to see they are posting regular updates, so I hope they will fix those issues I mentioned in future, and they should add hardware wallet support.
Two new features to compare added to our Software Wallets comparison.
- Seed Phrase Autocomplete
- In-app Keyboard
https://twitter.com/thebitcoinhole/status/1760121967116681419
- Seed Phrase Autocomplete
- In-app Keyboard
https://twitter.com/thebitcoinhole/status/1760121967116681419
Jump to: