Even though you are correct, some folks get confused by the term "non-custodial," and yeah, "non-custodial" means the same as self-custodial, and I personally think it is much more clear to use the term self-custodial in order that fewer  people will be confused.

I am not sure who came up with such dumb term "non-custodial"  that is confusing as fuck, yet everyone should be able to figure out what "self-custodial" is.

When possible, it is better to use more clear language in order to lessen the likelihood of confusion, especially when newbies are sometimes trying to figure out what they need to do.. or what they need to learn about, yet they might not even understand the terms that are being used, especially when the terms are ambiguous and potentially purposefully meant to mislead people.

In regards to custodial wallets, it is likely better to describe those as third-party custodial in order to clarify that they are wallets in which someone else controls the keys or that there might not be certainty in terms of the exclusivity of the wallet.. such as exchanges and other services that people use and they do not hold the keys, so those wallets are called custodial wallets, yet for clarity they are third-party custodial, so that should emphasize the point that someone else has the keys (or potentially can block the person from being able to withdraw the money from those kinds of third party custodial wallets).


That is part of the confusion, since "custodial" does sound safe, but it should be made clear that custodial is the same as someone else holding your coins rather than you holding your own coins, which causes me to suggest that it is better to use more descriptive terms in order to describe custodial wallets as "third party custodial" as opposed to self-custodial.  Self-custodial is more under your own control; however, there is a problem that people have to be responsible when using self-custodial wallets, since no one is going to save them if they lose their password.  A third-party custodial may well provide recovery of wallet advantages, so sometimes there can be confusion about the advantages and disadvantages and the level of responsibility that a person might need to make sure that they have when they control their own private keys... and it can be scary for people to be their own bank and to be in charge of their own keys and that they have to make sure that they are able to recover their coins in case something goes wrong with their self-custodial wallet.


Fair enough.  Yes.  There are needs for balancing in regards to where you keep your coins and what kinds of trade offs there might be in terms of how much value you are keeping in any one location and whether or not you control the keys or if the keys are controlled by a third party, and also there are likely varying kinds of security trade-offs depending on what service you are using (if we are referring to a third-party custodian) versus what kinds of features might exist (including also security tradeoffs and even variance in ease of use) in regards to various self-custodial wallet solutions that are available.


You must be lost, cxtreenal.  We are not talking about selling in this thread or trading, so the mere fact that some of us are talking about buying on the  dip, does not mean that we are also talking about selling, since one of the main ideas of the thread attempting various ways to accumulate bitcoin and selling is not one that we are discussing in this thread.. nor trading... those are topics and/or techniques for other threads.