pull down to refresh
17 sats \ 2 replies \ @nullcount 16 Apr \ parent \ on: Who pays for Bitcoin wallets? bitcoin
If you aren't able to review every line of code yourself...
But you trust the wallet maintainers not to be malicious...
And you trust that hundreds of competent engineers have reviewed the source...
Then whats the difference between using closed and FOSS?
Imagine if Apple included a closed source wallet on every iPhone. I trust Apple not to steal from me... they have a lot to lose by being malicious. And I trust that Apple is employing smart engineers to review the code.
Sure they're probably logging data about me, and that might make the closed source option "worse" in this case. But FOSS could also log data in a way that goes unnoticed for a long time
Apple has a lot lose by stealing from a user, definitely true.
Using an open source project with a lone maintainer and a tiny user base doesn't seem great.
Bitcoin Core on the other hand or Sparrow or Electrum or Blue Wallet have pretty huge user bases.
So the question is: is my trust assumption that competent users are doing a good job reviewing my open source project of choice a bigger leap than the assumption that a large company isn't willing to risk their reputation to steal from me?
I'm not sure how to best evaluate that question.
reply
I prefer FOSS because it is more trustless. But trustlessness alone does not necessarily yield better software.
Excellent software can emerge from both FOSS and closed source, is my point.
In 2032, all software is written and audited by AI so funding development is about to get way cheaper /s
reply