Quote from: dkbit98 on Today at 11:57:07 AM

....
Note that open source doesn't mean that wallet is more secure or better, but it means that code can be verified and checked by security experts.

As the log4j vulnerability pointed out yet again, sometimes open source just means a lot more people miss the flaws then a just a few.

Quote from: PawGo on Today at 08:59:51 AM

"decentralised"?
Why does it worry you?
Do you wonder if ATM producer created a backdoor in the machine and may steal your money?
Do you wonder if airbag in your car will be launched correctly? (Yes, I know Tanaka case)

At the end they are producers/sellers - and no-one will buy compromised devices. That's why they fix issues, they publish firmware updates etc.

Slightly different because if an ATM manufacturer steals your money your bank will probably eventually get it back to you and then put in an insurance claim and get it back from the operator of the ATM network the certified the machine.
And
The Takata airbags DID work as promised at 1st, it took a while for them to start to degrade and turn into grenadebags instead of airbags. Which is kind of like the log4j issue I mentioned above. Even with a lot of money and engineers looking at it, Takata fucked up big time.

Eliminating the fact that it could be abused, and I thought of it while posting this so I did not think in through all the way. Would you (any of us) be willing to pay more for a hardware wallet with some form of insurance. From an actual major company, that if the wallet if compromised and funds are lost through the manufacturers fault, the users get some or all of their funds back? How much of a premium would you pay if any?

As I said, I thought of it while posting so I might be b=missing something obvious.

-Dave