Wallet Logo

Blockstream Jade

latest release: 0.1.27 ( 24th August 2021 ) last analysed  17th October 2021 Not reproducible from source provided 
1st January 2021

Jump to verdict 

Help spread awareness for build reproducibility

Please help us spread the word, asking Blockstream Jade to support reproducible builds  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 

Blockstream Jade is one of the newer hardware wallets but provided by Blockstream which is a very well known player in this space.

On the product website, the Blockstream Jade is advertised as

The first purpose-built hardware wallet for Liquid.
Blockstream Jade is a purely open-source hardware wallet for the storage of bitcoin and Liquid assets.

Liquid is a sidechain developed by Blockstream, mostly used for quick settlement between centralized exchanges with some advanced features like “confidential transactions”.

This hardware wallet works with Green: Bitcoin Wallet Reproducible  and its iPhone and desktop counterparts as its companion app.

The provider makes no claims about the firmware being reproducible and neither can we find the binaries for download. Given the companion app does have a good track record of being reproducible, we assume this issue to be resolved quickly and being more about documentation but as with half an hour of searching we could not find the answers to these questions:

  • Where can I download the firmware binary?
  • Does the Jade display the binary’s hash prior to installation?

the firmware of this device is currently not verifiable.

(ml, lw)

Verdict Explained

We could not verify that the provided code matches the binary!

As part of our Methodology, we ask:

Is the published binary matching the published source code? If not, we tag it Unreproducible! 

Published code doesn’t help much if it is not what the published binary was built from. That is why we try to reproduce the binary. We

  1. obtain the binary from the provider
  2. compile the published source code using the published build instructions into a binary
  3. compare the two binaries
  4. we might spend some time working around issues that are easy to work around

If this fails, we might search if other revisions match or if we can deduct the source of the mismatch but generally consider it on the provider to provide the correct source code and build instructions to reproduce the build, so we usually open a ticket in their code repository.

In any case, the result is a discrepancy between the binary we can create and the binary we can find for download and any discrepancy might leak your backup to the server on purpose or by accident.

As we cannot verify that the source provided is the source the binary was compiled from, this category is only slightly better than closed source but for now we have hope projects come around and fix verifiability issues.

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.