Hmm... Seems
everyone here want to discuss my security model instead of electrum's.
Every software developer knows that removing (unused) code makes software less vulnerable because it reduces the attack surface. That's a fact. Strange that some people defend extra features (extra code) even if they are not using them...
I was not looking for a solution, as I had no problem with electrum to begin with, but only venting an opinion to make electrum more safe en more user-friendly.
@
Pmalek: FYI I see you merited a
reply with false information. Electrum
is suitable for hodlers.
=>
https://electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/coldstorage.htmlHiding features doesn't make them go away. Hiding possible vulnerabilities doesn't make them go away...
I do see where you are coming from, and I completely agree that unnecessary and extraneous features or tools add additional attack vectors. I've said as much before about a hardware wallet which has games on it, and about installing a bunch of other software on any device which you are using to hold large amounts of bitcoin.
However, Lightning support (for example) is neither unnecessary nor extraneous. Electrum offers a wide range of functions which some users don't use, such as multi-sig wallets, coin control, RBF, Lightning, and so on. As bitcoin develops, then more features will be implemented, such as taproot. Many people want and use these features; some don't. If you don't want these features, then don't use them. If you feel they are posing an unnecessary risk for you, then use different software or a different set up which completely mitigates such attack vectors, such as an airgapped device.
At least someone understands what I'm saying. Although you don't agree with me, you give a funded opinion.
Greets.