@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
Hi. Stack Wallet was added to the website !!!
I strongly believe you were looking at the wrong sections [Web/Linux/Windows/Umbrel OS support], hence the empty red boxes.
- They're labeled as open-source under the Android/IOS support sections.
The above feature already exists and you can find it near the top-left corner of the page.
My bad, I thought I was being careful, but seems like I still missed checking out some corners of the website page.- They're labeled as open-source under the Android/IOS support sections.
The above feature already exists and you can find it near the top-left corner of the page.
Thanks for the correction.
I feel like there's nothing missing from the website page now. It's pretty comfy for comparing one wallet vs another.
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2024/02/19/YPiuG.png
Ummm.... as a BlueWallet user, I always thought that the app was OpenSource. On its main website page, it's clearly stated that this is an OpenSource wallet where the GitHub repo can be publicly viewed and each change can be reviewed. Shouldn't the table on your website clearly state "YES" for this option?
I strongly believe you were looking at the wrong sections [Web/Linux/Windows/Umbrel OS support], hence the empty red boxes.Ummm.... as a BlueWallet user, I always thought that the app was OpenSource. On its main website page, it's clearly stated that this is an OpenSource wallet where the GitHub repo can be publicly viewed and each change can be reviewed. Shouldn't the table on your website clearly state "YES" for this option?
- They're labeled as open-source under the Android/IOS support sections.
If you're asking for my advice, maybe allowing users to apply some filters to those features could be a good idea.
The above feature already exists and you can find it near the top-left corner of the page. 
Ummm.... as a BlueWallet user, I always thought that the app was OpenSource. On its main website page, it's clearly stated that this is an OpenSource wallet where the GitHub repo can be publicly viewed and each change can be reviewed. Shouldn't the table on your website clearly state "YES" for this option?
You can check out this link ( https://bluewallet.io/features/#:~:text=Open%20Source,own%2C%20without%20any%20custodial%20dependencies ) to see the features available on BlueWallet that I'm talking about.
Github repo : https://github.com/BlueWallet/BlueWallet
TBH.. the table you provided is really cool and easy to understand. If you're asking for my advice, maybe allowing users to apply some filters to those features could be a good idea.
As promised, we added Aqua wallet.
https://thebitcoinhole.com/software-wallets
https://thebitcoinhole.com/software-wallets
@thebitcoinhole
Can you please add new software wallet on your website?
Aqua wallet supports Bitcoin on-chain, Liquid Network and Lightning Network.
Currently released for Android and iOS, pending desktop release and open source code publishing.
https://aquawallet.io/
Can you please add new software wallet on your website?
Aqua wallet supports Bitcoin on-chain, Liquid Network and Lightning Network.
Currently released for Android and iOS, pending desktop release and open source code publishing.
https://aquawallet.io/
Thanks for the suggestion. I will add it to the backlog.
@thebitcoinhole
Can you please add new software wallet on your website?
Aqua wallet supports Bitcoin on-chain, Liquid Network and Lightning Network.
Currently released for Android and iOS, pending desktop release and open source code publishing.
https://aquawallet.io/
Can you please add new software wallet on your website?
Aqua wallet supports Bitcoin on-chain, Liquid Network and Lightning Network.
Currently released for Android and iOS, pending desktop release and open source code publishing.
https://aquawallet.io/
Good list, is the code open source or are there plans to translate it, I can help with that if possible.
The wallets database with all the info is now open source and open for collaboration -> https://github.com/thebitcoinhole/software-wallets
@thebitcoinhole
Can you please add new software wallet on your website?
Aqua wallet supports Bitcoin on-chain, Liquid Network and Lightning Network.
Currently released for Android and iOS, pending desktop release and open source code publishing.
https://aquawallet.io/
Another suggestion is to add information for BIP formats supported.
For example Aqua wallet uses BIP84 for Bitcoin and BIP49 for Liquid.
Electrum has it's own format, and I am not sure about other wallets, but it's important to say that BIP39 is not standard for all wallets.
Can you please add new software wallet on your website?
Aqua wallet supports Bitcoin on-chain, Liquid Network and Lightning Network.
Currently released for Android and iOS, pending desktop release and open source code publishing.
https://aquawallet.io/
Another suggestion is to add information for BIP formats supported.
For example Aqua wallet uses BIP84 for Bitcoin and BIP49 for Liquid.
Electrum has it's own format, and I am not sure about other wallets, but it's important to say that BIP39 is not standard for all wallets.
Stack Duo is a fully open-source cryptocurrency wallet.
It is a fork of Stack Wallet, but stripped down to just Bitcoin and Monero
I think he doesn't want to add any software wallets that support altcoins, except Green wallet by Blockstream that supports L-USDT. L-BTC and other liquid tokens.It is a fork of Stack Wallet, but stripped down to just Bitcoin and Monero
Stack Duo wallet was not updated for months, and last time I checked it I saw they are in experimental phase, so I wouldn't use it as main wallet.
You can add Satoshi Wallet and Stack Duo Wallet.
Stack Duo is a fully open-source cryptocurrency wallet.
It is a fork of Stack Wallet, but stripped down to just Bitcoin and Monero
Stack Duo is the first wallet to implement PayNyms on iOS.
Features:
- Bitcoin and Monero wallet
- Available on iOS, Android, Linux and M1 Mac
- PayNyms
- UTXO management
- Dedicated nodes
- Built-in swap
- SegWit support
- Custom address book
- Easy backup and restore features
- Theme
- Open-source software
Website: https://stackwallet.com/
Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cypherstack.stackduo&pcampaignid=web_share
Github: https://github.com/cypherstack/stack_duo/releases
Satoshi Wallet is a Custodial wallet that supports the Bitcoin Lighting Network.
A functional POS on the Bitcoin Lighting Network that is free to download and use, easy to set up, and even supports bolt cards.
Available on iOS, Android
Website: https://www.walletofsatoshi.com/
Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.livingroomofsatoshi.wallet
iOS: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/wallet-of-satoshi/id1438599608
Stack Duo is a fully open-source cryptocurrency wallet.
It is a fork of Stack Wallet, but stripped down to just Bitcoin and Monero
Stack Duo is the first wallet to implement PayNyms on iOS.
Features:
- Bitcoin and Monero wallet
- Available on iOS, Android, Linux and M1 Mac
- PayNyms
- UTXO management
- Dedicated nodes
- Built-in swap
- SegWit support
- Custom address book
- Easy backup and restore features
- Theme
- Open-source software
Website: https://stackwallet.com/
Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cypherstack.stackduo&pcampaignid=web_share
Github: https://github.com/cypherstack/stack_duo/releases
Satoshi Wallet is a Custodial wallet that supports the Bitcoin Lighting Network.
A functional POS on the Bitcoin Lighting Network that is free to download and use, easy to set up, and even supports bolt cards.
Available on iOS, Android
Website: https://www.walletofsatoshi.com/
Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.livingroomofsatoshi.wallet
iOS: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/wallet-of-satoshi/id1438599608
Added Sentinel wallet
We want to announce that we are open sourcing our Hardware & Software Wallets databases.
We are open to receive collaborations from anyone who want to add new wallets or improve the data. The goal is to have the most complete and honest website comparing Bitcoin wallets.
https://github.com/thebitcoinhole/hardware-wallets
https://github.com/thebitcoinhole/software-wallets
New features added to our Software Wallets comparison.
https://thebitcoinhole.com/software-wallets
More features added to the software wallets comparison:
- Hot Keys support
- Multiple Wallets at the same time support
- Transaction Labeling
- Dark Mode
https://thebitcoinhole.com/software-wallets
[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]
We are open to receive collaborations from anyone who want to add new wallets or improve the data. The goal is to have the most complete and honest website comparing Bitcoin wallets.
https://github.com/thebitcoinhole/hardware-wallets
https://github.com/thebitcoinhole/software-wallets
New features added to our Software Wallets comparison.
https://thebitcoinhole.com/software-wallets
More features added to the software wallets comparison:
- Hot Keys support
- Multiple Wallets at the same time support
- Transaction Labeling
- Dark Mode
https://thebitcoinhole.com/software-wallets
[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]
First time I hear about MyCitadel wallet, but it looks interesting and it has similar clean interface like Electrum wallet.
I see it has support for hardware wallets, so I downloaded it and I will probably test it next few days.
Nice to see list of supported hardware wallets on thebitcoinhole.com website.
I did not bother to download the wallet because I think OP is almost accurate in what he is posting, although not only that but also because I can not completely recommend the wallet for now. If it is a wallet that support everything needed that I use to recommend people, I might have downloaded it and tested it.I see it has support for hardware wallets, so I downloaded it and I will probably test it next few days.
Nice to see list of supported hardware wallets on thebitcoinhole.com website.
According to the site OP is referring to, the wallet does not require anything like pin unlock, the passphrase is only supported for connected hardware wallet, not supporting backup and recovery with BIP39 seed phrase, which means it is not supporting BIP39 seed phrase, it does not have replace-by-fee.
Is there a reason to recommend this wallet? Although, it is an open source wallet.
Added MyCitadel software wallet to the comparison.
First time I hear about MyCitadel wallet, but it looks interesting and it has similar clean interface like Electrum wallet.I see it has support for hardware wallets, so I downloaded it and I will probably test it next few days.
Nice to see list of supported hardware wallets on thebitcoinhole.com website.
Added MyCitadel software wallet to the comparison.
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.
Logical because you are the one sending the coins, hence you can increase the fees you want to pay.For incoming (unconfirmed) transaction, you can not use RBF because only CPFP can be used.
Again, logical. By including the unconfirmed incoming coins in a new transaction that pays much higher fees, you increase the total fee rate for both transactions. I know all that. 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?
Exactly. Kruw already answered that Wasabi wallet doesn't have that. That makes it slightly different from Electrum where you have an option called CPFP by right-clicking on an unconfirmed incoming transaction in your wallet. 
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.
I understand the difference. But because I always have no more than one utxo on each address I have full control over my coins.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. 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). 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.
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.
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. 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.
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.If the wallet does not encrypt recovery files, there is no point in recommending it.
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]
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".
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 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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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]
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. 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.
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. 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
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? 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).
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.
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]
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. 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.
- 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).
Since we are talking about crypto-software-wallets, there is no need to mention LAUNCH YEAR/COMPANY/HEADQUARTERS/X (TWITTER),...etc
Why 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.
Good list, is the code open source or are there plans to translate it, I can help with that if possible.
Sorry, for now, no plans to open source it.Since we are talking about crypto-software-wallets, there is no need to mention LAUNCH YEAR/COMPANY/HEADQUARTERS/X (TWITTER),...etc
Why not? - In LIGHTNING NETWORK, I would like to add whether it is non-custodial or custodial
This could be a good addition. - 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.
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).
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).
Good list, is the code open source or are there plans to translate it, I can help with that if possible.
Since we are talking about crypto-software-wallets, there is no need to mention LAUNCH YEAR/COMPANY/HEADQUARTERS/X (TWITTER),...etc
- In LIGHTNING NETWORK, I would like to add whether it is non-custodial or custodial
- No need to add a QR Scanner
- 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 almost liked the PRIVATE KEYS section, it's the first time I've found such details.
There is an extended list by ---> https://walletscrutiny.com/ you can check out.
Since we are talking about crypto-software-wallets, there is no need to mention LAUNCH YEAR/COMPANY/HEADQUARTERS/X (TWITTER),...etc
- In LIGHTNING NETWORK, I would like to add whether it is non-custodial or custodial
- No need to add a QR Scanner
- 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 almost liked the PRIVATE KEYS section, it's the first time I've found such details.
There is an extended list by ---> https://walletscrutiny.com/ you can check out.
Moved the topic to the new board.
Also added Envoy wallet to the comparison.
Also added Envoy wallet to the comparison.
For now I am focusing on btc-only wallets.
If you scroll down, you will see move topic at the left side. But this thread is already on the wallet software board. In this new website I compare, feature by feature, the most popular Bitcoin Software Wallets: https://thebitcoinhole.com/software-wallets
I see you decided to expand your website from only hardware wallets to software wallets and other bitcoin related stuff.My suggestion is to move this topic to main Wallet Software board, since we can all see several desktop wallets on your website.
You can also add few more software wallets like Unstoppable.money, and divide them into android and desktop category.
I will think about more good wallets later and post them here.
Yes, I picked the wrong board. Any way to move the topic or I need to start a new one?
For now I am focusing on btc-only wallets.
In this new website I compare, feature by feature, the most popular Bitcoin Software Wallets: https://thebitcoinhole.com/software-wallets
I see you decided to expand your website from only hardware wallets to software wallets and other bitcoin related stuff.My suggestion is to move this topic to main Wallet Software board, since we can all see several desktop wallets on your website.
You can also add few more software wallets like Unstoppable.money, and divide them into android and desktop category.
I will think about more good wallets later and post them here.
According to their documentation. Wasabi has RBF support: https://docs.wasabiwallet.io/FAQ/FAQ-UseWasabi.html#how-can-i-speed-up-a-pending-unconfirmed-transaction-cpfp-rbf
RBF was introduced in their latest version (I guess), but CPFP was removed.Quote
How can I bump the transaction fee with child pays for parent (CPFP)?
Since Wasabi version 2.0.4 this FAQ is now obsolete because of the new Speed Up Transaction feature that can be used.
Since Wasabi version 2.0.4 this FAQ is now obsolete because of the new Speed Up Transaction feature that can be used.
Here they say they support RBF and CPFP: https://docs.wasabiwallet.io/using-wasabi/Send.html#speed-up-or-cancel-transaction
According to their documentation. Wasabi has RBF support: https://docs.wasabiwallet.io/FAQ/FAQ-UseWasabi.html#how-can-i-speed-up-a-pending-unconfirmed-transaction-cpfp-rbf
RBF was introduced in their latest version Quote
How can I bump the transaction fee with child pays for parent (CPFP)?
Since Wasabi version 2.0.4 this FAQ is now obsolete because of the new Speed Up Transaction feature that can be used.
Since Wasabi version 2.0.4 this FAQ is now obsolete because of the new Speed Up Transaction feature that can be used.
Version 2.0.4 is the latest version which was released some days ago.
https://blog.wasabiwallet.io/wasabis-latest-release-2-0-4-improves-coinjoin-efficiency/
It is worth knowing that going for non censored and non spying coinjoin like Whirlpool on Sparrow and Samourai is better.
Replace-by-fee (RBF)
You indicated that Wasabi wallet supports it. Yes, but you can not replace transaction on Wasabi wallet. You will have to export the seed phrase on a wallet that support RBF to be able to use RBF for the unconfirmed transaction.
Passphrases support(BIP-38)
It supposed to be BIP39 passphrase. The wallet you are referring to are BIP39 wallets that make use of BIP39 seed phrase, and BIP39 passphrase which is called extended word, not BIP38 passphrase/password that is used to encrypt a private key for paper wallet. You need to correct that.
You indicated that Wasabi wallet supports it. Yes, but you can not replace transaction on Wasabi wallet. You will have to export the seed phrase on a wallet that support RBF to be able to use RBF for the unconfirmed transaction.
Passphrases support
It supposed to be BIP39 passphrase. The wallet you are referring to are BIP39 wallets that make use of BIP39 seed phrase, and BIP39 passphrase which is called extended word, not BIP38 passphrase/password that is used to encrypt a private key for paper wallet. You need to correct that.
According to their documentation. Wasabi has RBF support: https://docs.wasabiwallet.io/FAQ/FAQ-UseWasabi.html#how-can-i-speed-up-a-pending-unconfirmed-transaction-cpfp-rbf
Fixed the "Passphrases support" wrong BIP.
Thanks
I don't think the comparison has been made only for mobile wallets.
For example, Wasabi and Sparrow don't have mobile versions at all, but both are shown in that table.
And assuming the table is referring to the android version of electrum and not its desktop version, it's not the "Coin Control" that wrong information is displayed for. The android version of electrum doesn't support Coin Control.
Got the point dear, many other members have also found some mistakes in the comparison table and if those mistakes are in comparison table then they also exist on the second domain as well, provided by the OP. For example, Wasabi and Sparrow don't have mobile versions at all, but both are shown in that table.
And assuming the table is referring to the android version of electrum and not its desktop version, it's not the "Coin Control" that wrong information is displayed for. The android version of electrum doesn't support Coin Control.
Thanks for the feedback. You can click in some data cells to get extra info (like blog posts, documentation or youtube videos). You can also can click on the cells in the features column to get more info about each of them.
I did not notice that some of the headings have hyperlinks or informative tabs, I think it will be way better if all the tabs are provided with this feature. But still, the website is overall good and this demand of me is just a wish that came to my mind while using your platform. Take note that there may be some differences between mobile and desktop versions of wallets.
For example, unlike what is shown in the table, electrum allow you to generate a 24 word seed phrase in its desktop version using console.
Fixed that info for Electrum. Thanks !!!For example, unlike what is shown in the table, electrum allow you to generate a 24 word seed phrase in its desktop version using console.
The platform seems nice and sophisticated too. But if the websites are yours and you have shared them to take some suggestions then my suggestion is to put an information icon on top of every tab or at least show some information of the heading if we take cursor on it as it will be more helpful for newbies like me to know what we are looking at.
Thanks for the feedback. You can click in some data cells to get extra info (like blog posts, documentation or youtube videos). You can also can click on the cells in the features column to get more info about each of them.
Nunchuk Windows, MacOS and Linux OS are still in beta stage, but you indicated that the OS are supporting the device. It would be better to edit it to 'beta'. When I downloaded the wallet some weeks or months ago, the wallet automatically load itself anytime I start my laptop. Also it is having inheritance plan and online seed phrase backup which I can not recommend.
You are right. Fixed. I added a BETA label
[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]
It's interesting that Wallet Scrutiny has tagged Bitcoin Keeper as having private source code and hence as a closed-source software. Maybe it was like that several months ago when they conducted their test and the company released the code only after.
Nice job with the new software addition to your website!
Nice job with the new software addition to your website!
The comparison is not for Android only, is for all the platforms. There is a section in the table that mention on which platform is running. I probably confused the category of the forum. Should I have used "Wallet Software" category, right?
I know that not the same features could be available on all the platforms. I that cases I could mention that in the overlay dialog when clicking the cell.
Thanks for the feedback. I will review it, reply and fix the data on the website.
I know that not the same features could be available on all the platforms. I that cases I could mention that in the overlay dialog when clicking the cell.
Thanks for the feedback. I will review it, reply and fix the data on the website.
In this new website I compare, feature by feature, the most popular Bitcoin Software Wallets: https://thebitcoinhole.com/software-wallets
Based on the issues raised by the above users, you should probably add multiple versions of each wallet to the list [unless you can make a dynamic table that could show different results based on the chosen platforms] and while you're at it, you might want to ditch the "platforms section" completely [e.g. list and filters].- Since you've posted this thread in the "Bitcoin Wallet for Android" sub-board, you should probably check "Envoy" as well.
I like the table, but it needs little edition.
Nunchuk Windows, MacOS and Linux OS are still in beta stage, but you indicated that the OS are supporting the device. It would be better to edit it to 'beta'. When I downloaded the wallet some weeks or months ago, the wallet automatically load itself anytime I start my laptop. Also it is having inheritance plan and online seed phrase backup which I can not recommend.
Pay-to-taproot (P2TR)
Indicated in yellow for partially supported wallets like Bluewallet, Samourai and Specter. These wallets are not supporting pay-to-taproot. What did you mean by partially supported?
Replace-by-fee (RBF)
You indicated that Wasabi wallet supports it. Yes, but you can not replace transaction on Wasabi wallet. You will have to export the seed phrase on a wallet that support RBF to be able to use RBF for the unconfirmed transaction.
Passphrases support(BIP-38)
It supposed to be BIP39 passphrase. The wallet you are referring to are BIP39 wallets that make use of BIP39 seed phrase, and BIP39 passphrase which is called extended word, not BIP38 passphrase/password that is used to encrypt a private key for paper wallet. You need to correct that.
For example, Wasabi and Sparrow don't have mobile versions at all, but both are shown in that table.
And assuming the table is referring to the android version of electrum and not its desktop version, it's not the "Coin Control" that wrong information is displayed for. The android version of electrum doesn't support Coin Control.
It also indicated encryption storage for Electrum, there is nothing like file storage on Android Electrum again.
Nunchuk Windows, MacOS and Linux OS are still in beta stage, but you indicated that the OS are supporting the device. It would be better to edit it to 'beta'. When I downloaded the wallet some weeks or months ago, the wallet automatically load itself anytime I start my laptop. Also it is having inheritance plan and online seed phrase backup which I can not recommend.
Pay-to-taproot (P2TR)
Indicated in yellow for partially supported wallets like Bluewallet, Samourai and Specter. These wallets are not supporting pay-to-taproot. What did you mean by partially supported?
Replace-by-fee (RBF)
You indicated that Wasabi wallet supports it. Yes, but you can not replace transaction on Wasabi wallet. You will have to export the seed phrase on a wallet that support RBF to be able to use RBF for the unconfirmed transaction.
Passphrases support
It supposed to be BIP39 passphrase. The wallet you are referring to are BIP39 wallets that make use of BIP39 seed phrase, and BIP39 passphrase which is called extended word, not BIP38 passphrase/password that is used to encrypt a private key for paper wallet. You need to correct that.
I think you must be talking about the mobile version as the comparison is also about the mobile version but you should also write somewhere that the comparison is only for the wallets which are running on smart phone or Android.
I don't think the comparison has been made only for mobile wallets. For example, Wasabi and Sparrow don't have mobile versions at all, but both are shown in that table.
And assuming the table is referring to the android version of electrum and not its desktop version, it's not the "Coin Control" that wrong information is displayed for. The android version of electrum doesn't support Coin Control.
I think you must be talking about the mobile version as the comparison is also about the mobile version but you should also write somewhere that the comparison is only for the wallets which are running on smart phone or Android.
I don't think the comparison has been made only for mobile wallets. For example, Wasabi and Sparrow don't have mobile versions at all, but both are shown in that table.
And assuming the table is referring to the android version of electrum and not its desktop version, it's not the "Coin Control" that wrong information is displayed for. The android version of electrum doesn't support Coin Control.
The platform seems nice and sophisticated too. But if the websites are yours and you have shared them to take some suggestions then my suggestion is to put an information icon on top of every tab or at least show some information of the heading if we take cursor on it as it will be more helpful for newbies like me to know what we are looking at.
Overall, websites seem good and fast too. Plus as hosseinimr93 has indicated that the desktop version allows us to generate 24-word seed phrases for Electrum wallet but you mentioned NO in the comparison. I think you must be talking about the mobile version as the comparison is also about the mobile version but you should also write somewhere that the comparison is only for the wallets which are running on smart phone or Android. I found writing this statement only in the URL other than that I did not find any. Maybe I might have missed it but it will be good if the heading is more visible.
Overall, websites seem good and fast too. Plus as hosseinimr93 has indicated that the desktop version allows us to generate 24-word seed phrases for Electrum wallet but you mentioned NO in the comparison. I think you must be talking about the mobile version as the comparison is also about the mobile version but you should also write somewhere that the comparison is only for the wallets which are running on smart phone or Android. I found writing this statement only in the URL other than that I did not find any. Maybe I might have missed it but it will be good if the heading is more visible.
Why did you post this topic on "Bitcoin Wallet for Android" board?
Since some of the wallets don't have android version, I doubt you have compared the wallets that are available only in android.
Take note that there may be some differences between mobile and desktop versions of wallets.
For example, unlike what is shown in the table, electrum allow you to generate a 24 word seed phrase in its desktop version using console.
Since some of the wallets don't have android version, I doubt you have compared the wallets that are available only in android.
Take note that there may be some differences between mobile and desktop versions of wallets.
For example, unlike what is shown in the table, electrum allow you to generate a 24 word seed phrase in its desktop version using console.
In this new website I compare, feature by feature, the most popular Bitcoin Software Wallets: https://thebitcoinhole.com/software-wallets
(For a comparison of hardware wallets you can also visit: https://thebitcoinhole.com/)
(For a comparison of hardware wallets you can also visit: https://thebitcoinhole.com/)
Jump to: