I don't think there's a need for diversity, one just has to try a few and use the few ones that are really good.
How that isn't diversity ? "Using the few one's that are really good ?".Okay for instance,you store all your coins on a desktop wallet like Electrum and your PC gets attacked by a ransomware or by a RAT ? What you do ? Lose all your coins ? That's not a good choice.Having the coins distributed always adds a security layer.
That has nothing to do with using one or one thousand wallet softwares.
If you're attacked, you're attacked. The attacker either gains control of your coins (and that's not wallet's fault, there's no known vulnerability in any of the most used wallets) or he doesn't and you can recover your coins from backups.
But I do agree that distributing coins somehow adds a bit of security. The question is, how much security does it add against having coins on the same software but distributed in different backups? And the practicality of having coins in one single software?
PS: let's not forget that we're talking about coins that we have for daily spending.
Personally, I only use breadwallet at the moment. It doesn't let me set a fee, but its fee calculating algorithm never let me down. If you really want to set a fee, just use Core or any of its derivatives. If you want to set a fee but don't want a full blockchain, take Electrum.
We're talking about distributed computing here...
Not sure what you mean by distributed computing in this context.
Do you mean that there's no need for more diversity? Because what you describe is that we already have diversity in Bitcoin wallets.
Yes, this would be a better way to describe what I meant
Some wallet software has become redundant. We're at a point in which some wallets softwares and online wallets are just rediscovering gun-powder...