Oddbean

Terminology matters. Words mean things. There is no such thing as a "custodial wallet"; that is an "account" you have with a custodian. When you say "non-custodial wallet" you are playing the tyrant's word games. "Non-custodial" implies that "custodial" is the norm. It is not and never should be. Because there is no such thing as a "custodial wallet," there can be no such thing as a "non-custodial wallet"; that's just a wallet.

Depends on the context. Usually a cloth or leather thing that you store paper currencies in (: The closest digital equivalent would be private, self run software that you store digital currencies in. It's a poor analogy because most digital "wallets" are more like a keyring.

Make this meme not be real! https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/796935699034144798/1238558716987707482/whats-a-wallet-again-v0-7dtso40vet7b1.png?ex=663fb931&is=663e67b1&hm=f8b2a6e9f8983bd3ead51dc1d18b216c389376726fa9920b20f73b4089e92d2b&

Depository institution: https://www.walletofsatoshi.com/ Exchange one money for another: https://www.exodus.com/ "Exodus Bitcoin & Crypto Wallet The only wallet you'll ever need. 50+ networks supported. Swap between 1000s of assets." Now I grant you, that last one you'll only find in shitcoin wallets, but the point is, my meme is exactly accurate. Is it a bastardization of English to use an oxymoron to describe something (custodial wallet)? Yes, but that's the reality we live in. Companies being deceptive because no one will sue them for deceptive practices.

These companies are gonna keep doing this. They're gonna keep paltering until it starts to cost them money and the only way to cost them money is to sue them, but that's expensive as hell to do tho.

The custodian may have a wallet, or may be using another custodian, with which they have an account. Either way, there certainly isn't a separate wallet demarced out just for your account. Funds are almost always commingled (for good reasons) with a custodian.

Further, it’s an anachronism to imply someone else can custody your bitcoin at all Control of the keys literally IS ownership, and the converse is true. You own bitcoin, OR You have an IOU account with someone who owns some bitcoin

So when you leave your car in a garage in the city, based on the contract you have with the owner of the garage (usually via T&C), you don't own your car anymore? Ownership is not the same as possession. You don't possess those coins, but you may legally own them. The contract may specify that the coins cannot be rehypothecated for example, so it's pretty much the same as your parked car. In both cases, your property may not be returned, but in both cases you may be OK with leaving a small part of your net worth with someone else for convenience and efficiency.

I suspect you understand the fundamental difference between physical and digital assets and the intersection that domestic property rights/legislation plays in that Starting point is that possession is 9/10th’s of the law .. that would be true with your car analogy but I’d suggest that with bitcoin it is 10/10ths

No-KYC, non/self-custodial, unhosted this needs to change - there's bitcoin and there's KYC bitcoin or fiat bitcoin - there's wallet/signer and there are managed accounts - there's software and there are cloud services nostr:note15ang369fwcnpzw5s9zadulqdvhsrv0mg87meq50c4rf464gpg8jqsrg2hh

What's the point in trying to take the word "wallet" back in this way? It's been used for custodial wallets for so long by now, that the chances of you ever having success with this language change are pretty much zero. Apple Wallet, Google Wallet, whatever other "wallet", all the things you use those with are custodial accounts. We can agree on us as developers calling custodial wallets "accounts" instead, but if you just call something a "wallet", you will have to specify if it's a key chain or not. Do you have a better term to propose for making that distinction clear?