Topic: Transfer from BRD (Read 355 times)

I'll have to disagree with this. Using open-source software above closed-source is a better choice, pretty much always. Hiding the source code doesn't mitigate the problems, but worsens them instead. If no peer can review the code, they can't respond to vulnerabilities as well. Furthermore, a hacker doesn't need the source code to accomplish an attack. There are dynamic attacks that are executed by observing the outputs from the inputs, static attacks that can use pattern-matches against binaries and attacks with the use of decompiler.

So, even for non-reputable software, having it open-source is a better choice, because hiding the source code does more bad to honest reviewers than to hackers, regardless of the reputation.

You can try different attack vectors against closed-source software as well. It's closed-source nature is not a protection of any kind. Windows is closed-source and it has been vulnerable to many different attacks in the past and new ones will be found in the future as well.

I am in the mood of another comparison.
Imagine I gave 10 people a pill with instruction manuals detailing how it was made, what powders and ingredients were used, which symptoms it reduces, how it can be misused, what side affects it causes, who shouldn't take it, etc. And instead of reading it or looking at it but not understanding what it says, everyone just swallows their pill. That's open-source software for you. It doesn't do anyone any good if no one takes the time or knows what that pill is good for and if they should use it at all. However, its advantage is that you have that manual and it's up to you to inspect it.

I repeat, open-source software that is widely used and has a big community of people who can be trusted with verifying what the code does is always better than a closed-source software that leaves anyone in the dark. But open-source does no one any favors if the code isn't independently checked thoroughly and every time code changes are made.       

Honestly, i was making the opinion that open source wallets are better than the closed source ones (by reading the comments ), but your post again makes me left in the middle of no man's land as its now difficult to choose between the open source and closed source wallets

Seeing it from your point of view and assuming the whole world is a hacker, in closed source wallets only the developers of that wallet can do any damage but with open source wallets, the whole world can search for the loophole and can take advantage of it

Let's not conflate safety and trust, but generally speaking the answer to this question is "yes."  Open source software removes the need to trust the developers.  Even if you are incapable of auditing the code yourself, you can relay on a large and unaffiliated group of coders who will audit the code to ensure the developers have no ill intent.  Does that make it safe?  Not necessarily, it could still be full of bugs or difficult to use, and cause all kinds of trouble even though it's "trusted" to not steal your coins.



I tend to agree with BHC; Ledger is great at marketing and tend to pursue the latest shitcoinery fads to remain at the top of the hardware wallet market.  But just because their firmware is closed-source it's not necessarily unsafe to use their hardware wallet.  The Ledger is probably not as good of an example as the ColdCard, which is also closed source.

Due to the way the ColdCard works (or can be configured to work) it may be (arguably) the safest hardware wallet on the market despite the fact that the firmware is closed-source.  It's not perfect, and has had some vulnerabilities exposed in the past, but so to has the Trezor and other open-source hardware wallets.

Open-source is better than closed-source, but only if the product is popular enough and sparks enough interest for independent code review. Trezor falls in that category. An open-source and brand-new piece of software that no one cares about is definitely not more secure due to the fact of being open-source. If you don't have people looking at the code and understanding what it does, it can still be malicious.

Think about it like this:

Open-source is a battle between good and bad.
Imagine a group of honest community members reviewing open-source code, but also imagine a group of hackers looking to steal crypto? Can they both review the code? Yes.
The honest group finds a vulnerability that can be exploited. They communicate their findings to to the owners, the devs update the code, and everyone is safer. Good job. The hackers find a vulnerability that can be exploited. They don't tell anyone, but instead take advantage of it. They end up stealing $5 million in crypto before the devs and the honest members of the community discover how they did it to patch their code.

Imagine the same scenario with a piece of closed-source software. Can hackers and honest code researchers inspect the code for vulnerabilities? No, they can't. The story ends there! The closed-source code can be excellent and unbreakable, and it can also be vulnerable to various types of manipulation. We just don't know. Only a small group of team members know what the code does, hackers and honest contributors can only discover vulnerabilities by chance since there is no code to read and inspect.

Yes, kind of. Not knowing the source code lowers the chances to have serious vulnerabilities fixed. Even if the developers are honest.

Yes. Both Trezor firmware[1] and software[2] are open-source.

Because of marketing.

[1] https://github.com/trezor/trezor-firmware
[2] https://github.com/trezor/trezor-suite

So it is concluded that open source wallets are safer to use as compared to close source wallets.

But then hard wallet Ledger is closed source too. So it is recommended to use the Trezor hardware wallet instead of the ledger?  Why do people trust Ledger wallet even though it's closed source firmware?

Don't hold your breath. From my experience, debugging is the most difficult part of making software. Keeping the source code hidden, not only forces the users trust your intentions, but your coding skills as well. And that's why closed-source OSes like Windows keep conjuring new updates that supposedly make things work better, but very often actually work worse.

You can't compare an open community like Ubuntu, wherein to become a developer you only need the skills and the intention, with Windows wherein there are far less developers and aren't allowed to reveal their work and goal.

In theory, there can be anything in the code. Only those who made it and have access to it know what it does and doesn't do. The public (you and me) know nothing. Can the code be malicious in the way that it records and makes a backup of your private keys and seeds? Yes, in theory it can.

Close-source software is a danger because you have to rely that the developers have good intentions.
Open-source gives you the chance to verify everything yourself. Since 99% of people have no idea how to do that, you are extending your trust to a bigger community of enthusiasts and security experts who know how to test software and find vulnerabilities in it.   

We don't know the source code, so we can't verify this kind of claims. We can only take the word of the developers. It is generally recommended to use open-source software, because source code being viewable by anyone means:

• More developers are able to check the code, which, therefore, makes things work in a more efficient manner.
• No belief to developers. Everyone can verify they're saying the truth without believing them.

But, especially for bitcoin wallets it is entirely against the ideology to use closed-source software.

Yes, that was the reason why i moved my funds from coinbase non-custodial wallet to the Electrum as suggested by many members on my query.

Just for my knowledge, Is there a threat the closed source wallets can be any time programmed to get the private keys / Seeds of our wallets  
By the way, Ledger is closed source too  

There are two types of Coinbase wallets. Both of them are closed-source, but one is non-custodial while the other is custodial. The Coinbase.com exchange wallet is the custodial one, the Coinbase wallet isn't. At least with the non-custodial app, your coins can't be locked by the company as only you have access to the keys. In theory at least. Like any other closed-source wallet, no one knows what is happening in the background.   

Well the coinbase wallet is also non-custodial wallet but with a closed source. So it is better that once you have done this step,  make a new wallet at electrum and transfer your funds to the New Electrum wallet. Now you will have a different seed phrase.
By doing this , you will have a piece of mind as its not very wise to trust the close source coinbase wallet.

Not transfer but you can regain access to those coins using Electrum wallet via your seed.

download Electrum wallet >> verify signature >> open it >> Say you already have a seed >> enter your wallet seed >> BIP39 in seed options >> legacy Address >> m/0' derivation path.
you will get most of your balance.

for your rest balance follow the say above but this time click on native segwit >> enter m/0'

If you follow the instructions in the link above, you can skip the step to manually edit the derivation path but instead, click "Detect Existing Accounts" above
That way, you'll see how many derivation paths have transaction history;
If there's two~three results, create a separate Electrum wallet for each result.
If there's only one result, just create that one, and you do not have to make another two wallets for the other script (address) types.

Yes as long as what Upgrade00 said that if you still have the seed phrase then you can import it to another wallet provider but if you don't have it then i am afraid that you can't import the wallet. I am sure you know what is seed phrase that is mentioned by Upgrade00, BRD use 12 word recovery phrase which you can import to other wallet like electrum and other wallet you know that is trusted or you have been using for quite some time.

With your seed phrase you have full ownership of your address and would always be able to access it regardless of what happens to a certain wallet software.

With that you can import into any wallet of your choice. Electrum which is suggested above is a good choice of a non custodian wallet.

Yes, you don't have to use coinbase wallet, you can just restore the wallet (with the seed) directly to Electrum by following this guide[1].

[1] https://bitcoinelectrum.com/restoring-your-multibithd-wallet-in-electrum/

I have a little bitcoins tied up in a BRD wallet. I cannot access BRD anymore (sold out to Coinbase). Is it possible to access this wallet to transfer it to Electrum wallet?