Our wallet review process
We examine wallets starting at the code level and continue all the way up to the finished app that lives on your device. Provided below is an outline of each of these steps along with security tips for you and general test results.
Passed 5 of 7 tests
We answered the following questions in this order:
We stopped asking questions after we encountered a failed answer.
The answer is "yes".
If the answer were "no", we would mark it as "Fake" and the following would apply:
The answer is "no". We marked it as "Fake".
We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer were "no", we would mark it as "Fake" and the following would apply:
The bigger wallets often get imitated by scammers that abuse the reputation of the product by imitating its name, logo or both.
Imitating a competitor is a huge red flag and we urge you to not put any money into this product!
The answer is "yes".
If the answer were "no", we would mark it as "Not a wallet" and the following would apply:
The answer is "no". We marked it as "Not a wallet".
We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer were "no", we would mark it as "Not a wallet" and the following would apply:
If it’s called “wallet” but is actually only a portfolio tracker, we don’t look any deeper, assuming it is not meant to control funds. What has no funds, can’t lose your coins. It might still leak your financial history!
If you can buy Bitcoins with this app but only into another wallet, it’s not a wallet itself.
The answer is "yes".
If the answer were "no", we would mark it as "A wallet but not for Bitcoin" and the following would apply:
The answer is "no". We marked it as "A wallet but not for Bitcoin".
We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer were "no", we would mark it as "A wallet but not for Bitcoin" and the following would apply:
At this point we only look into wallets that at least also support BTC.
The answer is "yes".
If the answer were "no", we would mark it as "Can't send or receive bitcoins" and the following would apply:
The answer is "no". We marked it as "Can't send or receive bitcoins".
We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer were "no", we would mark it as "Can't send or receive bitcoins" and the following would apply:
If it is for holding BTC but you can’t actually send or receive them with this product then it doesn’t function like a wallet for BTC but you might still be using it to hold your bitcoins with the intention to convert back to fiat when you “cash out”.
All products in this category are custodial and thus funds are at the mercy of the provider.
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. The answer is "yes".
If the answer were "no", we would mark it as "Custodial: The provider holds the keys" and the following would apply:
The answer is "no". We marked it as "Custodial: The provider holds the keys".
We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer were "no", we would mark it as "Custodial: The provider holds the keys" and the following would apply:
A custodial service is a service where the funds are held by a third party like the provider. The custodial service can at any point steal all the funds of all the users at their discretion. Our investigations stop there.
Some services might claim their setup is super secure, that they don’t actually have access to the funds, or that the access is shared between multiple parties. For our evaluation of it being a wallet, these details are irrelevant. They might be a trustworthy Bitcoin bank and they might be a better fit for certain users than being your own bank but our investigation still stops there as we are only interested in wallets.
Products that claim to be non-custodial but feature custodial accounts without very clearly marking those as custodial are also considered “custodial” as a whole to avoid misguiding users that follow our assessment.
We have to acknowledge that a huge majority of Bitcoiners are currently using custodial Bitcoin banks. If you do, please:
- Do your own research if the provider is trust-worthy!
- Check if you know at least enough about them so you can sue them when you have to!
- Check if the provider is under a jurisdiction that will allow them to release your funds when you need them?
- Check if the provider is taking security measures proportional to the amount of funds secured? If they have a million users and don’t use cold storage, that hot wallet is a million times more valuable for hackers to attack. A million times more effort will be taken by hackers to infiltrate their security systems.
The answer is "yes".
If the answer were "no", we would mark it as "No source for current release found" and the following would apply:
The answer is "no". We marked it as "No source for current release found".
We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer were "no", we would mark it as "No source for current release found" and the following would apply:
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.Distribution
Build Verifications
Build cannot be done because the source code is not publicly available.Android
Update 2024-07-15
The source code for this app remains unaccounted for as of this date, thus leaving this app as not verifiable.
Old Review 2021-05-03
Note that this wallet can operate as a software wallet and also used with a hardware device. This review is only in relation to the software wallet usage.
As with using the wallet with a hardware device the private keys would be managed by that device and we are not reviewing that setup.
After some research on this wallet it was not clear as to how the app manages private keys, so I reached out to the twitter handle…
“Hi with the mobile wallet app, the user is given 24 words backup recovery. Do you as the provider also keep a copy of these for backup, or are they the sole ownership of the wallet user?”
And the teams speedy response….
“D’CENT Wallet is a completely self-custody wallet. User has the sole ownership and access to the wallet and assets (privates keys) that are created in it.
The mnemonic code is created randomly when the wallet is installed. Since D’CENT (company) does not keep a backup at all, you will lose your assets if you lose the recovery words. Please be careful in handling your confidential information.”
With the provider confirming they have a non-custodial wallet we need to locate some source code in order to check the wallet for reproducibility.
I have contacted the provider to direct us to the correct repository
However their response below, was that the source code is only partialy open source.
Partial code open: https://github.com/DcentWallet The secure OS is proprietary and is not open source. Here is an article on the 3rd party security evaluation on D’CENT Wallet: https://medium.com/dcentwallet/coinspect-audit-of-the-dcent-wallet-b8a6cf50cfa4
They have pointed to a blog post regarding a third party audit of the software, however this is a blog and does not provide any documentation as to the audit results itself.
This was pointing at there hardware device software, so I asked a little more specifically on the software wallet.
“… with the software wallet option however is that part of the source code open sourced and public?”
app is also not open source
Our verdict: This ‘wallet’ claims to be non-custodial, however with no source code at the providers github repository it is not verifiable.
iPhone
(Analysis from Android review)
Fingerprint Authentication
Fingerprint authentication in Bitcoin wallets enhances security by adding a biometric layer to the access control mechanisms. This feature leverages the unique patterns of a user’s fingerprint to grant access to the wallet, making unauthorized access significantly more difficult. Biometric authentication is generally faster and more convenient than traditional methods like passwords or PINs, as it eliminates the need to remember complex combinations. This form of authentication is particularly useful in mobile wallet applications, where ease of access and security are paramount. Fingerprint authentication minimizes the risk of phishing or brute force attacks that typically target password-based systems. Furthermore, it can be combined with other forms of security measures, like PINs or passwords, to create a multi-factor authentication system for added security. The use of biometric data, however, raises concerns regarding privacy and data security. Users must be assured that their biometric data is stored securely and not vulnerable to unauthorized access or breaches.
- Enhanced security through a unique, non-replicable form of identification
- Convenience and speed of access compared to traditional methods
- Reduced risk of phishing and brute force attacks
Potential privacy concerns and dependency on device hardware capabilities.
Why we list it for this wallet
지문인식 콜드월렛 연동: EAL5+ 보안칩 기반 생체 인증
Source: Store description
Secure Elements
Secure Elements in Bitcoin wallets refer to dedicated hardware components designed to enhance security. These elements are specialized circuits or chips embedded in the device, providing a fortified environment for storing sensitive data such as private keys. Unlike standard storage, Secure Elements are resistant to tampering and physical attacks, making them an ideal choice for safeguarding cryptographic data and operations. The use of Secure Elements is crucial, especially in hardware and mobile wallets, where the risk of physical theft or tampering is a concern. These elements can effectively shield private keys from a wide range of attacks, including sophisticated ones like side-channel attacks. They ensure that private keys never leave the secure environment, even when signing transactions, offering a higher level of security compared to software-only solutions. While adding a significant layer of security, Secure Elements may pose challenges in terms of wallet recovery. In cases where the device is damaged or lost, retrieving the private keys can be more complex compared to wallets that solely use software-based security measures.
- Enhanced security against physical and sophisticated attacks
- Increased protection for private keys and sensitive data
- Peace of mind knowing that cryptographic operations are performed in a secure, isolated environment
Potential complexities in wallet recovery and dependency on specific hardware.
Why we list it for this wallet
지문인식 콜드월렛 연동: EAL5+ 보안칩 기반 생체 인증
Source: Store description
Trade from and to other crypto currencies
Exchange one crypto currency for another. You “receive Xcoin to your Ycoin account” while in the background the wallet sends your Ycoin address to a service provider which gives it an Xcoin address which it then displays. Funds sent to that Xcoin address - to that service provider - are then sold for Ycoin and the returns are sent to the wallet’s Ycoin address.
Easily accept receiving more coins without actually holding them.
- Sometimes the service is less favorable in its fees when used through a wallet integration than when using the service’s website.
- Some of those services require registration which links your transactions to your ID.
- The exchange provider might not deliver, making it complicated to prove what happened, who to talk to and how to ultimately recover funds.
Why we list it for this wallet
간편 스왑 & 브릿지: $1부터 시작, 네트워크 간 교환 지원
Source: Store description
NFC (Near Field Communication)
The wallet supports Near Field Communication (NFC) for wireless interaction with hardware wallets, payment terminals, or signing cards. NFC enables tap-to-sign or tap-to-pay functionality over a very short range (typically a few centimeters) without cables or QR codes.
- Convenience: Quick tap interaction — no cables to connect or QR codes to scan.
- Hardware wallet compatibility: Some hardware signing cards communicate exclusively via NFC.
- Requires NFC hardware on both devices.
- Very short range limits usability compared to QR-based air-gapped setups.
Why we list it for this wallet
(no justification provided by LLM)
Product page updated by Matthew Lamb, Daniel Andrei R. Garcia
Do your own research
In addition to reading our analysis, it is important to do your own checks. Before transferring any bitcoin to your wallet, look up reviews for the wallet you want to use. They should be easy to find. If they aren't, that itself is a reason to be extra careful.