Wallet Logo

Mycelium Bitcoin Wallet

latest release: ( 28th September 2021 ) last analysed  22nd September 2021 Reproducible when tested 
4.2 ★★★★★
11069 ratings
1 million
1st July 2013

Jump to verdict 

Older reviews (show 19 of 22 reproducible)

Help spread awareness for build reproducibility

Please follow Mycelium Bitcoin Wallet and thank them for being reproducible  via their Twitter!


The following Analysis is not a full code review! We plan to make code reviews available in the future but even then it will never be a stamp of approval but rather a list of incidents and questionable coding practice. Nasa sends probes to space that crash due to software bugs despite a huge budget and stringent scrutiny.

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 

Disclaimer: The authors of this project have contributed to Mycelium.

Independent re-builds:

Here we test if the latest version also can be reproduced, following the known procedure expressed in our test script:

appId:          com.mycelium.wallet
signer:         b8e59d4a60b65290efb2716319e50b94e298d7a72c76c2119eb7d8d3afac302e
apkVersionCode: 3110008
verdict:        reproducible
appHash:        b9128a48550a3aeff64b1aa7ad48b8b9a53877aab16f1129f0357f0c5ad267ee
commit:         71d867731852c04d8e9864a36effd3903aa3aafb

Files /tmp/fromPlay_com.mycelium.wallet_3110008/META-INF/CERT.RSA and /tmp/fromBuild_com.mycelium.wallet_3110008/META-INF/CERT.RSA differ

Revision, tag (and its signature):
object 71d867731852c04d8e9864a36effd3903aa3aafb
type commit
tag v3.11.0.8
tagger itserg <sergey.dolgopolov@mycelium.com> 1631889747 +0300

UI issues' fixes

which is what we want to see to give this wallet the verdict: reproducible


Verdict Explained

The binary provided was reproducible from the code provided.

As part of our Methodology, we ask:

Does the binary we built differ from what we downloaded? If not, we tag it Reproducible 

If we can reproduce the binary we downloaded from the public source code, with all bytes accounted for, we call the product reproducible. This does not mean we audited the code but it’s the precondition to make sure the public code has relevance for the provided binary.

If the provider puts your funds at risk on purpose or by accident, security researchers can see this if they care to look. It also means that inside the company, engineers can verify that the release manager is releasing the product based on code known to all engineers on the team. A scammer would have to work under the potential eyes of security researchers. He would have to take more effort in hiding any exploit.

“Reproducible” does not mean “verified”. There is good reason to believe that security researchers as of today would not detect very blatant backdoors in the public source code before it gets exploited, much less if the attacker takes moderate efforts to hide it. This is especially true for less popular projects.