Topic: The bad side of close source wallets (Read 228 times)

Closed and open source wallet have there owned disadvantages but the impression that open source wallets are exposed to attack is a lie if the wallet programmer did an excellent job in creating the wallet code.
Meanwhile, Satoshi introduced the open source idea in crypto to make everything to be decentralized and every wallet owner that created close source wallet automatically don't respect the foundation of cryptocurrency.
 

If given a choice between an open-source and a closed-source wallet, it's always better to go for the one with a public codebase. But don't make the mistake of thinking that open-source means reliability and security. It doesn't. It's a sign by the developers that they have nothing to hide. Here you go, take a look at our software and inspect it yourself. In reality, most people don't check what they are using. They like the idea of using open-source software and they like to rely on the fact that others have (probably) done a thorough job in checking it. It's also essential to consider who the developers behind the software are.

What if your non-custodial wallet has a backdoor or a keylogger that records everything you do on it?
What if it gives users pre-generated seeds, tracks the addresses they fund, and steals their coins?
How will anyone know if no one can inspect its code?

This has always been a fake excuse by these developers to hide their malicious intents.
A closed source software can be exploited just as easily, and closing the source does NOT solve any problems. Look at how many exploits exist for Windows (ie. a closed source operating system) from the day it was created until today.
A closed source software can still have fake versions when all the malicious actor needs is the name of the wallet. People who don't verify what they download would get the fake version and lose their money all the same.

I think we have to first categorize the wallets.
Are we only comparing bitcoin wallets (wallets that only support bitcoin and absolutely nothing else). In that case I don't think closed source wallets are popular at all. We already have excellent open source bitcoin wallets for all platforms (desktop, iOS, Android,...) so closed source wallets have nothing to say here.
But when it comes to altcoin wallets, or more specifically multi-coin wallets where the user can store one or more altcoins in one wallet then the options shrink when it comes to good open source wallets. That is why they have gone towards closed source ones. For example Coinomi supports a very large number of altcoins and it has been letting people claim their shitcoin airdrops very easily while there is no open source wallet that could do the same. So obviously people are left with that bad option.

It is my opinion too.

It is better for coders for but people who simply use a wallet, are not able check codes, it is vague belief for them. They have to blindly believe in verifications of community that one opened source wallet is good.

Thank you for this point.

The vulnerability that can be introduced into source code can be more than the code used to generate mnemonic, it can even be other form of malware or vulnerabilities that can be monitoring someone's activities, it can be the one that can malaciously even reveal the seed phrase, and many more can be the vulnerability. Yes, that is why open source wallets are the best because the source codes can be seen by the public, accessed and Lok for errors and vulnerabilities, but close source wallets source codes not known to the public which makes it not accessible, even people using the wallet can not access the source codes.

Yes, using closed source wallets isn't generally recommended, since you can't check the randomness of the seed/address' generation. Most of the wallets that are closed source are against the Bitcoin's free software philosophy. The code should be available for anyone who wants to use it.

But: You shouldn't completely whitelist every open-source software you see. It turns out that making the code available to anybody, isn't a proof of trustworthiness! There are cases in which the programmers have coded maliciously. By that, I mean that they've made their code confusing enough for a human to miss parts of the code that may be malicious. For example, they may have mixed their code.

I personally consider trustworthy an open-source software in which its code is well-structured and reviewed by other programmers.

The problem with closed source wallets is that you don't know how they generate tve wallets mnemonics and if the process is truly random.
Running a closed source wallet off-line doesn't make it any safer if the mnemonic generation process is rigged. There is a possibility that the developers can regenerate all their customers private keys and steal their coins.

And if the wallet is close-sourced, how do you know it's non-custodial? Do you simply trust their words and promises?

The only way they can prove their wallet is non-custodial is by opening up the app's code to the public.

It does not matter to me if a wallet is open source or closed. The only thing that matters most to me when I select a wallet is that whether it is custodial or non custodial.

Always use a non custodial wallet and which is not connected to the internet for long term hodl. For short term use any wallet that is non custodial and is easy to use.

Open-source to me is more secure because with open source a user having programming knowledge can change the wallet code and decode it to his desired code that will run the Bitcoin wallet giving the user total control over the security of the wallet.

But that can not happen with a close source wallet because you don’t have the wallet code, just a wallet key that can’t give a 100% guarantee of the wallet security.

Anything which stores money, or operates similar to a bank should be open sourced in my opinion. I couldn't recommend a wallet which is intended to store value, which is closed source. Yeah, its quite obvious that just being open source does not mean its secure or even trustworthy, but any software which offers the ability for you to check the code yourself, is always going to be infinitely better than one that doesn't.

There was some cons to open source software, where they might be easier to exploit. Malicious users might take a look at the code, and identify areas which they can exploit. However, on the contrary there's also those that will be able to improve the code by taking a look at it. So, there's a contrast there which can have negatives, and benefits. However, generally I believe that it has more benefits.

Being an open source doesn't mean its secured, reliable and can be trusted.

There are lots of open source project that become scam, failed because of their scammer and incompetent team while there are successful closed source project because of the opposite.

What matter is a trusted entity/team/developer that can audit the source codes and verify if there's nothing malicious but still the team can change it before they can audit the sources.
That's why you still need to trust those people behind the project at the very least.

I know the risks of close source wallets but not all people are coders. If they are coders, it does not mean they are good coders or security experts to detect suspicious codes in source code of wallet (open source wallet).

Hence, for me and others who are not coders, I have to blindly believe on what the community verify. Community verified open source wallets are better than close source wallets in this view.

With old historic and trusted close source wallets, I can believe in them. I don't prioritize close source wallets for my choice

He does have a point; open-source is about the open nature of the code while Free-and-Open-Source Software (FOSS) is closer to what Bitcoin wallets are. First was FOSS, and then companies coined the "Open-Source" and removing "Free" from it since they, as companies, are looking to make profit in various ways and/or included proprietary stuff..

Since Bitcoin open-source wallets don't have ads, proprietary blobs or some kind of marketing schemes, you can call them FOSS. For example, Ubuntu is Open-Source but it isn't Free since it has proprietary firmware. PureOS and Trisquel instead are FOSS Linux distros since they are purely open-source from end to end.

Blind beliefs doesn't mean bad side on closed source wallets for you? I'm confused cos closed source wallets sucks, anything can happen with closed source wallet, they can run a new code without you knowing, it's why open source is more reliable

For me, there is no specific bad side to a close source Bitcoin wallet. Because close source means blind beliefs. If you are using a closed source wallet that means you are trusting them blindly. They could do whatever they want with your funds because you don't know really what they wrote in the code. So everything related to the close source is bad at all when the question comes to cryptocurrency. For example, sometimes I use the coinbase wallet service for my local transaction. This is a closed source wallet and custodial as well. I don't know if they freeze my funds or not since I can't read the code. So during choose a Bitcoin wallet, you should choose an open-source noncustodial wallet.

If you do not know what to post, do not post. You can research more about open source and close source before posting about it. If you know your post will be irrelevant, why posting.

The most generic and correct term is `Free Software'. Bitcoin is free software, not open source.
Open source software has got no philosophy involved and pointing users to it
is a big problem because they will only get a fraction of what
Free Software and the Free Software Movement are all about..

Cheers!

When bitcoin was created, wallets are open source until some gone close source. Even there were some close source wallet now that were open source before, like the Coinomi and Trust wallet (iOS version), both has now gone close source. Satoshi's ambition was to make everything about cryptocurrencies to be open source, but some people are thinking differently in a way they prefer it to be close source. Some have the excuse that open source wallets codes are known to the whole public and can be copied with little changes to introduce vulnerabilities that can steal coins from users, but the bad side of close source wallets is far beyond that.

Today I checked the app stores to noticed the world have preferred close source wallets, having millions of downloads. I was not surprised because people are getting scammed daily after several warnings about scam, but people will being people, they like what is latest, they like what others are going for, people do not care if it is authentic or not but just follow others, most people are not making there own researches before going for anything.

Close source wallets misleading the world, a way legit companies might become the problem of tomorrow
What is called legit in life? You are the legit because you can not do yourself harm, but others are not legit aside anything open source. But there are others that gain peoples trust while they are called legit also, but they might do harm in the future if you do not know about them, that is why open source is very important.

The future the introduction of spyware and other vulnerabilities into close source wallets and apps
Most people are now depending on close source wallets, but they do not think of the future, people will still being people, nothing is legit than yourself and anything that is open source to you, close source wallets and apps are the potential risks of the future in a way they may spy on you or have others ways to cause you ham, or even collaboratimf with governments to spy on you Ina way they will be custodial while people will think they are noncustodial. Which means close source can create ways to let noncustodial wallets to have source codes that will make them custodial.

People should go for open source wallets
This is not necessary but if you like your bitcoin better go for open source if you need privacy. Open source is what you can trust after you because you know the source codes unlike close source.