Wallet Logo

Coinhub: Multi-Chain Wallet

Latest release: 2.3.7 ( 10th May 2022 ) 🔍 Last analysed 3rd February 2022 . No source for current release found
4.1 ★★★★★
869 ratings
100 thousand
13th July 2021

Jump to verdict 

Help spread awareness for build reproducibility

Please help us spread the word discussing transparency with Coinhub: Multi-Chain Wallet  via their Twitter!

Do your own research!

Try out searching for "lost bitcoins", "stole my money" or "scammers" together with the wallet's name, even if you think the wallet is generally trustworthy. For all the bigger wallets you will find accusations. Make sure you understand why they were made and if you are comfortable with the provider's reaction.

If you find something we should include, you can create an issue or edit this analysis yourself and create a merge request for your changes.

The Analysis 

On the Store they say:

Coinhub is a decentralized multi-chain wallet that supports multiple platforms, integrating wallet, data management, financial management, mining, trading and other functions all together. It now supports BTC、ETH、BSC、 Solana、MATIC、AVAX、FTM 、HECO and other 20+ public chains.

so they claim to be non-custodial wallet that also supports BTC but on their website they also claim:

Truly Open Source
Forever Responsible to Guarantee the Secure

yet their GitHub currently has not a single repository. This app is not publishing its source code.

This lie together with very bad user reviews (many call it a scam without much details other than some missing airdrops), we recommend the reader to not trust this app without further investigation. This app is most certainly not verifiable!

(lw)

Verdict Explained

Without public source of the reviewed release available, this product cannot be verified!

As part of our Methodology, we ask:

Is the source code publicly available? If not, we tag it No Source!

A wallet that claims to not give the provider the means to steal the users’ funds might actually be lying. In the spirit of “Don’t trust - verify!” you don’t want to take the provider at his word, but trust that people hunting for fame and bug bounties could actually find flaws and back-doors in the wallet so the provider doesn’t dare to put these in.

Back-doors and flaws are frequently found in closed source products but some remain hidden for years. And even in open source security software there might be catastrophic flaws undiscovered for years.

An evil wallet provider would certainly prefer not to publish the code, as hiding it makes audits orders of magnitude harder.

For your security, you thus want the code to be available for review.

If the wallet provider doesn’t share up to date code, our analysis stops there as the wallet could steal your funds at any time, and there is no protection except the provider’s word.

“Up to date” strictly means that any instance of the product being updated without the source code being updated counts as closed source. This puts the burden on the provider to always first release the source code before releasing the product’s update. This paragraph is a clarification to our rules following a little poll.

We are not concerned about the license as long as it allows us to perform our analysis. For a security audit, it is not necessary that the provider allows others to use their code for a competing wallet. You should still prefer actual open source licenses as a competing wallet won’t use the code without giving it careful scrutiny.

The product cannot be independently verified. If the provider puts your funds at risk on purpose or by accident, you will probably not know about the issue before people start losing money. If the provider is more criminally inclined he might have collected all the backups of all the wallets, ready to be emptied at the press of a button. The product might have a formidable track record but out of distress or change in management turns out to be evil from some point on, with nobody outside ever knowing before it is too late.