Topic: Hardware wallet vs software wallet for daily transaction (Read 820 times)

For me at least, if you're offering wallet software the primary goal should be trust, as well as transparency. So, it should be open source. Although, for me I don't want to be pushed into a certain exchange or service, even if the exchange is like universally accepted as the greatest thing on the earth, I don't want to be pressured into it or only offered that option. By all means, link to documentation from multiple sources on what makes a exchange good, but definitely don't push a certain exchange. That's not because of the reasons you've mentioned above (those too), but the fact that we should be pushing for decentralisation, and therefore shouldn't be recommending a singular service.

I don't think you're being too paranoid. Safepal, and therefore Binance aren't exactly covering themselves in glory here. Although, unfortunately this is how they make money, and I suspect far more exchanges, and wallet software is indeed doing exactly the same.

My advice is to use a hot wallet for your daily expenses and keep huge sums into hardware wallets.

One more that is not mentioned is that safepal wallet and their app are sponsored and supported by Binance, and some people would say that is great news, but let's think about it.
Binance is recently kissing regulator asses much more than ever before, and it's safe to assume they are recording and reporting all addresses and transactions from safepal wallet.
They could in theory even stop or block access to safepal app and you won't be able to use wallet anymore if they connect you with any blacklisted or ''tainted'' addresses.
I would not trust seed phrase generated by safepal and I would send all coins to other wallet asap, but I could just be little paranoid about this.

I've never used Safepal, but from what I can find, it uses uses a mnemonic seed phrase. That's your fail safe
To be absolutely sure it can be recovered, I'd use Ian Coleman's Mnemonic site (offline, airgapped and running from RAM with the curtains closed) to check I can recover the same address before funding it. I never found any inconsistencies this way, which to me confirms my paranoid checks work

Which, is conveniently not mentioned in that image, and that is something I would consider a deal breaker, no matter what ever other benefits it has. It encourages centralisation first, and no wallet that you use should be limiting you to what services you can use. There's just no fail safe.

Wallets should always allow multiple ways to access, and manage your Bitcoin. Otherwise, leave them be. Although, we already have enough wallet software which is very much capable of the above, and we don't need all these new comers which try to convince others they're better. The current options in my opinion are perfect. Open source, have decent security implementations, and aren't pushing some sort of service or agenda on you.

Follow the same logic and safety precautions as you would on a computer. Don't visit bogus and unknown websites, don't open attachments and emails from strangers, and don't download and install non-essential software and games just to try them out or for fun. Use common sense, be smart about what you are doing, and you will be safe.

One big issue on iOS is that you can't have reproducible builds, because what is downloadable from the AppStore is actually compiled by Apple servers. I would still stick to something open-source non-custodial which supports connecting to my own node through Tor.

There is not, however unless you've jailbroken your device and don't hand your phone to strangers, border patrol guards etc. all the time, you are relatively safe. It's crucial that you run the latest version at all times, though. That's pretty much the best you can do. You could also jailbreak and install some random virus scanner app, but in my opinion it makes more sense to keep the device up to date and guard it from physical attacks.

What would be the best software wallet for the iphone if you want to use it for daily transactions?


is there a way to know your iphone is safe from any malware or virus first before you even create a wallet on your iphone?

It's obviously bias review, and funny thing to me was assumption that safepal has some professional anti-attack level.
Sure they have bigger IPS screen but I have seen many reports from people who claims it breaks much easier than on ledger or trezor.
How about the fact that you can't use safepal with any third party wallet, so you are stuck only with their app.

As soon as I check out such a device and I see it's closed source, that's game over for me. It boggles my mind how a 'cypherpunk product' can be completely closed source and people still buy it. Like, for what you know, you could be completely deanonymized by the hardware, firmware and host software (especially if it's a phone app) easily without noticing. They could also transmit your seed phrase or xpub to themselves through these unauditable encrypted QR codes to further deanonymize and even steal from you (the latter wouldn't be a very smart business decision though).

Now that I think about it, encrypted QR codes are probably the fishiest thing of them all about this wallet. I suppose that forces you to use their software (which knows how to decrypt them), while at the same time not allowing you to verify for instance with a phone app, that the QR code is a raw PSBT without anything else in it.

Not to mention that the image also seems a marketing ploy. I'm not sure where the image has come from exactly, and who's behind it. However, using the green coloured font, to try, and push it being better in almost every way, is a little suspect. Especially, considering the things they've already been caught for.

If you do want a hardware wallet, you want to be using a company with integrity, and for me SafePal aren't that, and pretty much any other alternative out of the big three would be better solely based on that.

Price is now more expensive for Safepal than image is showing, and I don't consider it safe at all, you can't even verify what is hidden in those encrypted QR codes they generate.
Not to mention how they stole GPL open source code and made it proprietary, and later they got busted by Kraken team long time, but they are simply ignoring this.
You can read Kraken report here and Safepal reply in this post, and my point is that Safepal has some serious security flaws and there is a reason why they are the cheapest wallet you can find.

nankers isn't very good with English and maybe he wasn't talking about scanning QR codes. Maybe he wanted to say that you need to check and physically confirm the transaction details on your hardware wallet. The screen will show you the destination address, the fees, and the amount being sent.  

That's no longer good enough. There was a post here a few months ago about someone experimenting with clipboard hijackers for hardware wallets. I can't find it now though. Your generated address would be replaced with one that is made up of the same characters with only a few changes. Checking more than just a sequence of 3-4 characters is recommended. 

No, this is not safe, scanning QR codes for every transaction might sometimes lead you to a scam, there are too many reports about this, scammers tricking the QR codes since codes are almost similar and design and no one will notice if you will send your Bitcoin to the scammer address.  Manual input is still good because you can manually check like checking the Bitcoin address last 3 digits and the first 3 digits.

Trezor, SafePal S1, and Ledger Nano S are the most secure wallet and I tend to agree with this.  Both have a security feature and both also have pros and cons which do you prefer to use and the cheapest among them all is the SafePal wallet.

I saw a comparison of these 3 wallets that you may look at it too.

source.

IMO, if you don't have a budget to buy a hardware wallet, still good to use an open-source software wallet, as long as your device is safe and make it sure didn't have a malware infection.

I still recommend using a hardwallet for a secure choice which is more secure than a software wallet
why ?
on the hardwallet the wallet owner must scan the wallet for each transaction, otherwise the transaction will not be fulfilled
Besides that, using a hardwallet can be said to be one of the answers to what you are worried about if using a software wallet there are often scam tokens and what's worse, even loss of assets.
and here is one hardwallet that I have now is the safepal hardwallet, I prefer the safepal hardwallet because in addition to the many global wallets such as the multi-wallet that is in the trust wallet, it is a distinctive feature of the safepal hardwallet itself
especially the various kinds of hardwallets that are now available
so the conclusion is
hardwallet has a secured level which is more secure than software wallet which is prone to theft of assets.

True, mainly pointed out that fact for others that might not have the same mentality. I'm not against hot wallets at all, and I imagine quite a lot of people use something similar to this. I'm just hoping that they understand the risks of using it with a large amount of Bitcoin or anything that they deem more than they can afford to lose. I'm not automatically saying phones are insecure either, largely depends on how they're used.

I believe that legal issues can be a big hurdle. Depending on legislation, selling a car for BTC (then selling BTC for $ to keep the store running) could in the worst case make you legally an exchange, requiring you to collect KYC / AML data for instance.
In other cases, it could be seen as a simple trade of goods.
In the best case, such as in countries which accept Bitcoin as legal tender, it would be handled as a normal sale and you would probably then also pay tax on that sale in BTC.

In an older thread of mine I ended up collecting laws on how Bitcoin is seen in different countries, which could give clues where it is easier and where it's harder to really sell goods for BTC. Maybe there's something interesting to find there.

Absolutely. But I'm fully aware of the significant risks in using a hot wallet, and I am accepting of those risks for the small amount of bitcoin I store in my mobile wallet for the convenience of having those coins readily available to spend at all times when I'm shopping, traveling, etc. If my phone gets stolen and I lose my coins, I'll be far more bummed out about the cost of a new phone than about the small amount of bitcoin I had on it.

P2P as you say. I've also bought some electronics on a couple of occasions for more bitcoin than I would store in a mobile wallet. If I wouldn't carry that amount in cash, then I'm not storing it on a mobile wallet.

I think hardware wallets will always be more widely used among holders with deeper pockets no matter how widespread Bitcoin and crypto becomes. If we suppose that a good device costs around $200, it's not going to attract everyone. If you made a poll amongst bounty hunters in the altcoin section, for example, and asked them if they use hardware wallets to store their bounty tokens, the majority would probably say no. Their tokens aren't worth anything. Ask those interested in Bitcoin who are in good-paying signature campaigns and the answers are completely different.

That reminded me of a thread I started on that subject some time ago about car dealerships that accept crypto. You can check it out if you want > Cars That Can Be Purchased with Bitcoin

While I agree with you, there's been signs already of car dealers accepting BTC as a payment[1][2] - heck if this website is correct, there's even a small business in Italy that accepts it[3]! The adoption - in the wider sense of the world - is still miles ahead, but at least there are some stores that are taking baby steps in this field. I wonder what would be the first major car dealer to adopt it?
I think that your opinion can be applied in the broader sense - if we tend to wear attire / personal objects that directly state how "wealth" we are, then for sure we'll attract ill intended attentions in the long run (and even worse depending on the countries you're in). Like everything, one should think very carefully as to which kind of information it's transmitted to the outside world by means of one own lifestyle. A very basic example, and it isn't something that "valuable" - I've got a couple of friends that were robbed in Brazil for simply using their smartphone during their walks within the cities they were in (I can't remember which one was it atm). The robbers saw them and simply went up to them, in broad daylight, and took their smartphones away... And we're talking about just smartphones! Imagine what would be if a more "lavish" object was being used?

---

[1]https://spendbitcoins.com/places/c/car-dealers/
[2]https://www.autocoincars.com/
[3]https://www.autofesio.com/

I once tried to pay in cash, but had to prove money origin because of AML (over $10k).. 

Well, you could also argue if they get more popular and 'everyone has one', it will again get ambiguous as to who has more funds in crypto and who owns less. Kind of similar to increasing the size of an anonymity set.
As I stated in the past, you also shouldn't flash it around, just like you shouldn't probably run around with a cash wallet open and visible.

Under what circumstances would this happen? I can imagine a P2P trade, but I use exchanges instead. I can imagine paying for a car, but car dealers are a long way from accepting Bitcoin (last time, I just raised the limit on my debit card and paid by entering my 4 digit PIN).
I hope that I'll some day need to think of a safe way to pay a large amount in Bitcoin in person though, but I don't expect it any time soon.

While I probably wouldn't advice it, and its not something that I do myself, however it's definitely convenient. The thing is, if you haven't downloaded anything else without verifying the source, for example downloading applications from f-droid, that you've verified, and you don't allow installing from unknown sources, Android is fairly secure, because it has a decent permissions system. This could potentially be breached, but so can any operating system.

The only issue I see with phones is commonly your not always connected to your own network, and you use roaming or 3G/4G which can be attacked in certain ways depending on the implementation of it. Also, goes without saying, using Wifi on it while spending your Bitcoin probably isn't the best idea.

Approach the problem from a different angle. If you lose your wallet or it gets stolen from you, the thief might not have enough time to breach its security before you can transfer your coins elsewhere. Maybe he doesn't even know what it is. But crypto is getting more and more popular and people will start to recognize hardware wallets if they see them in the public. It draws unnecessary attention. You don't want to give anyone any ideas to think: is this guy worth robbing!? Let's see what he drives. Oh, nice car, let's follow him home. Sure, you can become a target for other reasons as well, but it's worth keeping that to a minimum if you can. 

On the other hand, everyone is using phones and many use them for payments. Whether you paid with Bitcoin from a phone wallet or you used the phone to access your online banking or payment processor wont be known by those in your close proximity unless they overheard your conversation with the cashier.

This is pretty much the set up I use. A hot wallet on my phone for daily spending. Yeah, it's not super secure, but I don't download any junk on to my phone and I only keep an amount I can afford to lose on there, and I've had no problems yet. If I wanted to make a bigger purchase in person, then I'll take along a hardware wallet, perhaps even with the funds secured by an additional passphrase and a decoy amount of coins in the base wallet.

Not with iOS, since Apple locks down what hardware can utilize their ports. Neither Trezor device nor the Ledger Nano S can be used with an iPhone, for example, although all can be used with Android. The Nano X can only be used with iPhones because of its Bluetooth capabilities.

Depends on the context, I suppose. The average non-technical user with an outdated Windows PC but an up to date Android or iPhone is far more likely to end up with malware on their PC than on their phone. However, when considering airgapped wallets in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, then computers are far more secure than phones.

I didn't know about this, but can't you just use simple usb adapter and connected hardware wallet with your phone.

You could, but I don't see any point in doing that for smaller transactions, and you will only increase transaction fees.
Maybe fees are not such a big issue now but I think we all remember the times when we had to wait for weekend to get lower fees.

I would not agree with that statement in general, computers can have much better encryption protection and they don't have backdoors like smartphones.
Like it or not smartphones are always connected with network or internet, and it's really easy to get totally airgapped offline computer.
Is it easier to use smartphones than laptop computer for making secure transactions? Not for me for various reasons, but other may disagree with me.

Okay, but nothing protects you against that attack. Not a software wallet, not a hardware wallet, not a real wallet and neither does an offline wallet at home on airgapped laptop. If someone wants to mug you, they will. Doesn't make the wallet less suitable 'for daily transactions' (the topic we're discussing about here).

Ok then we're on the same page on this one.

As for Lightning: yes, that's the only reason I'd use a hot wallet for daily transactions. If I want it to be the absolute fastest (in my humble opinion required for in-store purchases) and cheapest to send with the least amount of hassle, nothing beats it. It's not very secure if the device is compromised though (talking about security = software attacks / viruses).
So for any significant amount I'd just grab a hardware wallet that works with my phone. Sure, not all do, but what kind of argument is that? Only because not all HW wallets work with phones, you should instead use an airgapped laptop to sign the transactions? Just get one that works with your phone...

I was merely trying to make my point about hardware wallets being an inconvenient way to make small everyday purchases. The fact that not all hardware wallets can be directly paired with a mobile device only makes my point stronger. People making shopping in a grocery store want their payments to be fast, even instant, which a hardware wallet is not suitable for. I'd instead use a software wallet with lightning network support which allows for instant payments and requires no time-consuming interactions and manipulations to prepare your wallet for making these instant payments.

Precisely, it does make you a target; the situation gets worse as bitcoin grows in value and recognizability. This is a downside of being your own bank.

True. It also comes down to how high or how low the time preference of the robber is. A robber that is more patient and persistent in his endeavor to find out where your funds are is going to be more successful and wealthier than his colleagues hunting for hardware wallets only.

But the discussion here is about daily spending - no one is going to carry a phone, a laptop, and a hardware wallet in to a shop and then set up the laptop on the cashier's desk so they can sign a transaction. Such a set up is suitable for cold storage you interact with at home, not for a daily spending wallet.

I agree with you to an extent, but conversely, if a $5 wrench attack is in your threat model then spending bitcoin in public at all makes you a target. Whether your use a mobile wallet or a hardware wallet, someone can attack you and coerce you to reveal the locations of your seed back ups or how to access your other wallets. It all comes down to whether you think you can convince the attacker that what you have on your mobile wallet is all you own, versus the plausible deniability you might get with using passphrases on a hardware wallet.

For Windows, you're probably right. But getting physical access to that PC is a lot more difficult than getting physical access to your phone. It got me curious how many phones get lost:
That's far more than I expected (and quite hard to believe).

I don't use strong security on my phone (because it's annoying), so my solution is avoid adding much value to it.

I think it mostly depends on what you mean by "pairing." If a hardware wallet can't be connected directly, an indirect connection might help, but it obviously will take additional steps to sign a message safely. For example, I have a software wallet installed on my iPhone, but it doesn't have private keys inside it and only creates unsigned transactions. I also have an offline laptop with Electrum installed, which I use as an interface for signing transactions with a hardware device. After my transaction is signed, I transfer it back to my mobile phone. It is also necessary to have an offline laptop because a hardware wallet can function in hostile environments. That is how a "pairing" may be defined.
   
A secure element hardly protects you from 26$ wrench attacks (inflation-adjusted). Hardware wallets are meant to protect considerable sums, people carrying around considerable sums are worth target to attack and rob. You are going to have a hard time convincing a robber that you use a hardware wallet just to make very small purchases.

I consider PC even less secure than the mobile phone when it comes to keeping private keys securely.

No, not all can. Especially iOS supports only a very limited number of HW wallets since it doesn't allow to use the USB port.

So you'd argue it's unnecessary if you mainly use a PC? Does this imply you believe it's a good, secure way to store your seed on a PC? I highly disagree. Or do you have a second, airgapped PC next to your main one and transfer UTXOs back and forth when doing daily payments (the topic of this thread)?

Another option is to have a HW wallet for on-the-go with less funds on it and one for larger amounts in a more secure location like a safe at home.

Nobody said you should carry around  hardware wallet with you all the time.
Keep hardware wallet at home with majority of your coins, and when you need to make transaction transfer smaller amounts to software wallet.
Otherwise, you are risking much more with everything being kept of mobile wallet, that can be stolen, lost and hacked much easier than hardware wallet.
There are great wallets that support QR codes (Keystone, Passport, etc), you don't need to connected them with any other devices, and they are much faster than ledger.

You forgot to mention SD cards, which is arguably the least convenient way of transferring transaction data when visiting a grocery store. As for security, I guess SD-cards are less secure than QR-codes but provide better protection than Bluetooth or NFC. Basically, all hardware wallets can be paired with a mobile phone in one way or another, but that doesn't make them suitable for everyday shopping. Carrying around your hardware wallet is still a bad idea. The only use case I can think of where hardware wallets may help is if you're using a mobile phone as your primary means of payment to search for and buy stuff online. When you're shopping online with your phone visiting many websites that can potentially be malicious, it is rational to not hold your keys on the same device you are surfing the Internet. Whenever you want to make a payment, you connect to your hardware and sign a transaction.

As I said, hardware wallets that are compatible with phones do exist. For instance, Foundation Passport, which uses QR codes is compatible with any smartphone that has a camera (so, all of them). Some others are usable through the USB port of an Android phone or by using NFC / Bluetooth, however that's less convenient (and way less secure!) in my opinion.

If you were to opt for a 'hot wallet' instead, I find your choice of 'online wallet that you connect to via your phone' extremely questionable. I don't think I've even come across an online wallet in.. years, honestly. Just use a hot wallet that stores the seed on-device, but please no online wallet. That's so 2010.

There is a limit, it is called time!  Adding a single new account takes little to no time but I have had a Ledger with at least 5 accounts before and the initial setup takes a LONG time to find and sync them all up.  Coin Control with address labels is so much easier and does not need time to 'sync accounts'.  It just syncs the balances of addresses of your 'account 1' derivation path.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

I am not going to carry around my hardware wallet and then connect that to a notebook or tablet to do daily transactions, when I visit a shop that accepts Bitcoin payments. I will much rather have some online wallet that I can connect with via my phone ..so that I can scan a QR code if the price is displayed with a QR code. 

I see hardware wallets as a secure way to use as cold storage and not a wallet for daily usage. It is also good for online payments when you shop online.... but not really a option for mobility. 

First, think about if you really need to keep $10k on you at all times and can't 'plan ahead' (e.g. transfer some coins from cold storage to hot storage before leaving the house if you anticipate needing more money than usual that day).
In case I needed to have $10k on me in BTC every day, I would use the Foundation Passport, since I can use it with my phone. I wouldn't store amounts of this magnitude in a software wallet.

You can always create additional accounts in Ledger Live for different use cases. There are no limits to that as long as an address of 'account 1' was funded before you create 'account 2'. You can have an account just for your current signature campaign. If and when you switch to a new signature campaign, you can create a new account just for that one. You can make one for gambling, another one for trading. Or you can make one for each and every platform you use. Make one for family and friends independent from work and business activities. Mix it up every way you want. It's still not the same thing as labelling addresses, but is ok as a workaround.

I don't think that coin control is useless because you can't label the address. You can control that in an excel sheet, for example, if you are confused about all your addresses. I am not confused about my addresses and I don't label them.


They added this possibility in  "Experimental Features", I just found it out while exploring my software!

https://support.ledger.com/hc/en-us/articles/360017551659-Setting-up-your-Bitcoin-full-node?docs=true



Edit: Ofc we cant verify if we still have full privacy using this feature, as the software is not open source.

I remember using their Coin Control feature early last year too, so it has been there for a while already.  But to me, not being able to sign a message is a shame and not being able to label addresses makes Coin Control useless.  When you have 30+ different addresses on the Coin Control list, it becomes annoying and very easy to mess up.

Had they added possibility of running a full node or your own server in combination with Ledger Live, next to features such as message signing and address labels, I could confirm and say it has every basic Bitcoin wallets functionalities.  But with these features missing, no thank you.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

This statement is misleading for a number of reasons.

First, there exist open source hardware wallets. If your argument is that (some) software wallets are better because they are open source, then that argument fails when compared to an open source hardware wallet.

Second, "open source" is not synonymous with "immune to attack". There are plenty of pieces of open source software and open source wallets which have suffered from critical security flaws and vulnerabilities. Even Bitcoin Core has had a number of critical bugs discovered in it, some of which were exploited, such as the value overflow incident.

Third, malware attacks are exponentially more common than attacks which compromise the RNG of a hardware wallet or similar. Can you point to a single example where a compromised RNG on a reputable hardware wallet such as a Trezor or Ledge resulted in loss of coins? Because I can point to thousands of incidents of malware stealing coins from software wallets.

True. But, malware is not the only attack vector that HW needs to withstand. There are other vectors, like compromised RNG, compromised Firmware etc. exists for HW, which is not there for open source SW. So, one can't really say that a hot wallet on HW is more secure than a hot wallet on SW, just because SW is more susceptible to malware attack.

I don't think Electrum is particular private either. In both cases you are connecting to a server ran by a third party who can then see all the addresses you are querying and all the transactions you are broadcasting and then link them altogether.

Ledger will be worse in some aspects, since they can potentially link your address data to some other personally identifying information about you that they store, and they will be able to link all your altcoin addresses too.

Electrum will be worse in some aspects, since you are connecting to many different servers which increases the risk of connecting to a malicious one who is spying on you.

The upside to Electrum of course is that you can point it at your own server (or a specific server ran by someone you trust).

You can  choose any address or utxo you want.

But you are right about the servers,  you have to use their servers... só you lose privacy compared to electrum

Does it only show UTXOs from the same address, or maybe only from addresses which already fit whichever algorithm you pick? I don't want it to select anything for me, I don't want to have to pick "minimize fees" or "merge coins" - I simply want a list of every UTXO in my wallet with the option to choose the exact ones I want to spend.

Regardless, it's a bit of a theoretical point since I'll never use Ledger Live since it connects to Ledger servers and I don't trust them with my data or privacy one bit.

Yes, you can choose which of UTXO you actually want to use.
I just tested it now in my wallet. You can see all those UTXO from the same address, and you can choose which one you want to spend.



This is just like electrum, but with a more friendly interface.

Can you actually choose which UTXOs to include though? As you've shown in your screenshots, it seems you have to pick one of three options, one of which serves no useful purpose (FIFO). The other two are useful from a fees point of view, choosing to minimize the transaction size when fees are high or consolidate your coins when fees are low, but both are bad from a privacy point of view. Does the list of UTXOs which pops up after you select an option include every UTXO in your wallet and allow you to actually choose which ones to use? If not, then this set up is passable only for fee management, and if privacy is your aim then this is awful and might even be worse than no coin control at all.

---

In terms of OP's question, I think of it like this:

A software wallet (mobile or desktop) is analogous to your physical wallet. The coins stored in such wallets are analogous to cash. How much cash would you carry around with you for daily spending? $100? Put that much bitcoin in those wallets.
A hardware wallet is analogous to your checking account. You can store many thousands of dollars in here if you wish. You withdraw from your checking account at an ATM, and you top up your mobile wallet from your hardware wallet.
Proper cold storage is analogous to your savings account. The bulk of your coins should be stored here. You rarely make withdrawals from this account - only for big purchases.

Even if you are negligent, the probability of hacking the hardware wallet is less than the possibility of hacking your desktop wallet, but the difference will be fundamental if you use altcoins, as hardware wallets represent a better option than downloading closed source wallets.

For Bitcoin, the choice is up to you, but a hardware wallet, with a little caution and stop downloading unknown apps, will increase the protection of your currencies more than desktop wallet.

I will go with HW.

I really dislike the process of using a hardware wallet at home too: get the device, plug in the cable, use 2 tiny buttons to enter a PIN, go through the menu structure to confirm the transaction.... It's all a lot of work and totally not worth it for small transactions.
I have several wallets with small amounts (say $10 worth of crypto) that I use without password. It's great to pay a few cents for a VPN or a few dollars for hosting. I even found out Coinpayments doesn't accept €0.25 in Bitcoin LN, it was below the minimum, so I had to switch to LTC.
I love the convenience of scanning a QR-code or copying an address, punching in the amount, and clicking Send without any further authentication! Of course, you shouldn't do this for large amounts, but it would be perfect to buy a coffee.

I would love to be in a position where I can consider $10.000 to be my daily spending limit. I am not quite there yet.

I guess it depends on how and where you are spending those coins. If I am sitting in my home doing some online shopping for the day, a hardware wallet would by my choice. I wouldn't be in that much of a hurry to create, verify, and sign those transactions.

It's totally different if you are outside. Using a hardware wallet isn't the most convenient option. Plugging it in, double-checking everything both in the software client and on your hardware wallet's screen takes time. I always try to get out of shops as soon as possible because it's usually crowded and loud, people are in a hurry... For that purpose, I would use a mobile wallet because simplicity and convenience is higher on the priority list than the safety of funds when it comes to coins intended for daily use.

There's no doubt a hardware wallet is the most secure option, but when you flash/display it in public, you might become a target of those that are around you ^{[usually, the ones who have it, use it for significant amounts (I do know using passphrases counts as a solution, but still...)]}!

You have a point, but depending on the type of features you actually use and how buggy they might be, sometimes that doesn't apply to certain brands and models ^{[e.g. Ledger Nano X vs Trezor Model One]}.

I'd say it's even more important to have a secure system when handling someone else's money.

With enough receiving addresses, creating an unsigned transaction online and signing it from an offline PC might be faster than using a hardware wallet.

It may not make sense for normal user, but it may make sense for OP.
If/when he has campaigns to be managed, especially (but not necessarily) if they're more than one and the payments are not in the same day of the week, he may have to handle bigger/big amounts of money/bitcoin on a weekly basis.

I don't know though what does a HW show when one makes a transaction with 20-40 outputs... 

This is not true. A hardware wallet is meant to protect your funds against software attacks. It's much, much more difficult to create malware that steals funds from a hardware wallet than it is to steal funds from a hot Electrum client.

---

---

I just realized the entire use case doesn't make sense: most people won't consider $10,000 a normal amount for "daily expenses". Something around $100 would make much more sense.

Given your use case, i.e. daily expenses, both Electrum wallet & Hardware wallet will provide same level of security.

Why?

Because, your Hardware wallet is not airgapped. Every now & then you'll have to connect it to the internet.

Why?

Because, first your Hardware wallet needs to update its UTXO set to create a transaction. This requires connection to the internet. Signing can be done offline. Broadcasting can also be done by copying the signed transaction to mobile/laptop. Though, it would often expose it to an internet connected device.

So, unless you are storing your fund on an airgapped Hardware wallet, your are as secured as an Electrum wallet user.

LL has a history of bugs, of adding more advertising before fixing the bugs and that's not good. I also expect Ledger as company keep an eye on what funds everybody has, where possible (exactly in the same way some Electrum servers do). But I've got used with Electrum, it does everything I need almost in the way I want it, so that's what I use.
And Electrum server can be installed locally too, so if one doesn't travel, he can have a good mix of protection (HW) and privacy too (local server) with this setup.

I just found out that they are supporting Coin Control!!
https://support.ledger.com/hc/en-us/articles/360015996580-Using-Coin-control?docs=true




This is amazing and now Ledger Live has every basic bitcoin wallets functionalities. I will try it later.

---

 when transfering ETH/ERC-20 it lacks customization and it always charge more fees than necessary.
You can see in the image below that there is a range input to choose the fee (the minimum is not zero)

This is the way to go It doesn't even have to be a hardware wallet, it could also be an offline Electrum installation.

For the record: using a hardware wallet doens't mean it's offline. You could connect it to an offline Electrum installation, and sign the transaction on the hardware wallet, but that seems a bit excessive.

Isn't it the same with fiat? I assume you don't keep all your money at the same place: some in cash in your wallet, some in your old sock or piggy bank at home, and some in the bank. You divide your money based on it's purpose.

I would go with Bitmover's suggestion. Splitting funds is probably the ideal solution here. You should keep the majority of your funds on a hardware wallet because it's more secure, but since you're planning to spend on a regular basis, a mobile wallet is may be more convenient for that, especially if you're going to do that when you're outside.


Apparently, it's available: https://support.ledger.com/hc/en-us/articles/360021039173-Choose-network-fees?docs=true

A hardware wallet you can easily buy already at under 100$. It doesn't have to be the fanciest and most "offline". Of course, the more money you want to keep on it, the more it makes also sense to not get the cheapest HW.

Why? Because of the peace of mind. Because it's convenient and you can use same known setup even when you travel. Because ... better safe than sorry.
Yes, both can be hacked, but for HW they need physical access or the owner doing something really-really stupid. And yeah, Electrum works with HW too, at least on PC.

You can use both together.

However, you don't need to carry all those 10,000 with you all the time. You can send 9,000 to your HW and keep 1000 in a Electrum mobile wallet. Once the balance goes down, just move more to the mobile wallet.

Personally, I keep most of my coins (95%) in multiple hardware wallet, and I always use electrum or Metamask when making a transaction. I don't like Ledger Live software as it lacks fees/transaction customization.

It all depends on how you protect your device.
If you know how to protect your wallet then Electrum should be enough for daily use but if you are a beginner and want an extra security layer then you must use a hardware wallet and hardware wallets like ledger nano support more coins than Electrum which only supports BTC.

The question is if you may do all that from home (using computer/laptop) or if it must be mobile (smartphone - app or amartphone+HW).

If you think about world where FIAT is completely replaced by BTC, there you will have different kinds of transfer needed.
First of all, I do not understand why not to split your BTC into several wallets/devices.
You may pay for your electricity/gas etc., some serious payments, using hardware wallet and computer.
If you go to shop, you may use prepaid card, like one from Binance. Or use app on mobile phone - depends on the recipient's capabilities.
The question if you may plug your HW into smartphone is a secondary problem.

Imagine, you have $10000 (in BTC) which you may need every now and then for your daily expenses. Which wallet would you prefer to use?
1. A electrum wallet
2. A hardware wallet (You can transact offline, you can transact using your mobile)

Which one would you consider using if you are considering the fact that both wallet can be hacked and your $10000 can be stolen. Which one is safe from your end? Remember, we are talking about a wallet which you are using for paying your daily expenses. We may not have such a city, but there's nothing wrong to imagine a world with BTC as global currency.

So please, which one and why?

And I really have tried to find out a better board to post this, I can't find any other board to post than this.