feat: add BULL by Bull Bitcoin#4555
Conversation
|
Thanks for your submission! Please review guidelines for adding a wallet. In particular please refer to the length of the description, guidelines for trademark capitalization, and the specifications for submitted icons and screenshots. Have you carefully reviewed the list of requirements and believe that the wallet meets all of those requirements? |
|
@ethicnology The bitcoin.org build server was down when you pushed your commits. It's back working now. If you would push a new commit, it will perform some basic testing and schema checking on your submission. Thanks. |
|
@crwatkins I've updated the images using magick convert and optipng. |
|
You may have noticed that the CI has failed on your submission due to a missing privacy field. Could you look into that and correct it to proceed? The wallet files here are fairly arcane, so if you need any help on the syntax or the field definitions, please ask here. |
|
@crwatkins thanks for your support, CI is good now |
|
@crwatkins is there anything blocking left ? |
|
Sorry for the delay; there is a bit of a backlog. I agree with your assessment of the screenshot. Perhaps you could look at some of the other wallet screenshots for some guidance. As for the icon, please note the requirements listed are:
The icon itself will need to fit inside 85 x 85. |
Icon previously filled the entire 144x144 canvas. Per managing-wallets guidelines (square icons must fit within 85x85), scale logo down and center on transparent background. Re-optimized with optipng -o7.
|
Thanks for the update @crwatkins I retried with -resize 85x85 -background none -gravity center -extent 144x144 |
|
The new icon looks better. Thanks. |
|
After reviewing BULL Wallet in depth, I think this PR raises a more complicated question than a normal wallet listing review. From a technical perspective, the wallet appears to be genuinely well engineered:
I do not believe this belongs in the same category as custodial Lightning wallets or misleading “Bitcoin” products. However, after reviewing historical discussions on wallet policy — particularly #2723 and #3173 — I think BULL sits at a difficult intersection of previously established precedents. The key issue is not whether the wallet supports Bitcoin mainchain functionality (it does), but what the wallet’s default operational model actually is. Historically, listed wallets have generally remained Bitcoin-mainchain-first, even when supporting additional systems or side features. In BULL’s case, the relationship is inverted:
This appears materially different from the approach discussed in #2723, where keeping Liquid functionality separated or explicitly user-selected was treated as an important distinction. It also intersects directly with the framework discussed in #3173: wallet evaluation based on default behavior rather than optional configuration paths. Under that framework, BULL’s primary/default operational experience does not appear to be Bitcoin-mainchain-based in the same way as wallets currently listed on the site. My personal conclusion is therefore:
For that reason, I am not yet convinced this is a clear fit under the historical framework previously applied to wallet listings. Davi |
|
I have to agree with @devdavidejesus here. I'll repeat @devdavidejesus that Bull wallet appears to be a technically strong non-custodial wallet. In addition, it has some great innovative features that absolutely should be encouraged. However, I have similar concerns with the listing criteria. There exist requirements that relate to "all major components of the wallet" and I think it is fair to presume that there is an implied requirement to not break the trust model of Bitcoin. Because of the Liquid currency mentioned above (instead following the Liquid trust model), I don't believe Bull currently qualifies for listing. This would be the same if the funds were held in any other cryptocurrency (regardless of what the currency was denominated in). To allow for listing, there could be future changes to the criteria, or perhaps listing a broader set of wallets under different categories could be considered. Community input on this subject is certainly welcome. |
|
As I think you've noticed, BULL really does implement some of the highest standards of quality and ethics you can expect from a Bitcoin wallet: open-source, reproducible, coin control, full-node validation via self-hosted electrum, TOR, hard ware wallet compatibility, segwit, descriptors, BIP39, etc. etc. It seems like the blocking point is the fact that it also offers a Liquid Network option. I would raise these points of consideration:
I will spare you the years of R&D but I can assure you that usage of LBTC to achieve a Lightning Network experience that actually works reliable and is affordable without being full-blown custodial was carefully considered. In addition, I'd like to point out that there are currently three mobile apps listed on bitcoin.org that list altcoins: Edge, Mycelium and Bitpay. Not only that, but they actively promote the purchase and trading of altcoins. Secondly, another app, Green (now Blockstream) also supports LBTC, in addition to Tether. Trust me, I completely understand your point of view. Bitcoin.org is a trusted source for best practice, and we should be very careful to promote something that is not fully compatible with the bitcoin ethos. However, I would plead the case that the way we have implemented LBTC is following these same principles. I think it would be better for a beginner to stumble upon Bull Bitcoin than some of the other alternatives currently listed on the site and certainly more than many of the other crypto wallets out there. One other thing that is worth noting: BULL is well-funded as a FOSS project (MIT) by the bull bitcoin exchange company. What this means is that we won't be suddenly disappearing and the project will be under active development. This is important, because it means that not only it will not be outdated, but it will be actively maintained and improved for many years. And I guarantee we will never, ever list any shitcoin. I humbly ask that you consider listing BULL as a mobile Android/iOS wallet (and, perhaps later this year, desktop too!) disclosure: i am the founder of Bull Bitcoin |
|
@BullishNode Thanks for your thoughtful response! I believe I agree with most of your points if not all of them. I believe the issue is that the "Instant payments" feature, received primarily via Lightning, stores a fairly significant amount of funds in the Liquid network by default. In addition, my perception is that "instant payments" is a major component of the wallet, if not the primary component. While there are not criteria which directly address user education, I suspect some users would be surprised that their received Lightning funds were not "stored in the Bitcoin network". I want to be clear that I applaud your innovation, and I'm not in any way evaluating risks of the Liquid network. I'm attempting to apply the listing criteria correctly. That criteria can be modified, or even waived given compelling circumstance. I'm personally having trouble coming up with such changes that would not set a precedent for a flood to be opened up. Suggestions are welcome from the community. |
|
Regarding the maximum amount a user can hold on Liquid by default, it's 500000 sats (~400$ at today's price). We designed the default amount to be pocket money essentially. In order to hold more than that, user needs to explicitely override in settings (Green, by the way does not have that feature). Listing criteria are critical indeed, however I don't thinking listing BULL would be a "loosening" of the listing criteria. I think it might actually be strict if we consider bitcoin-only, security, privacy as the core criteria. For example, here is a comparison of the 5 wallets already listed on the site (recommended today) VS BULL. I leave this here as a useful piece of data for community review and discussion. You can see BULL shows Bitcoin on Receive screen by default Green shows Bitcoin first with other assets on Receive screen Bitpay shows a bunch of other assets on receive screen Mycelium shows ETH by default on home Edge shows a bunch of other assets on receive screen |
|
More community feedback - I think it's been demonstrated here that:
On top of this, they have payjoin and just integrated the Samrock option for merchants. It's hands down the best wallet, it's not even close, you would be doing a disservice to all that use your site to not add Bull, especially while already having other wallets that violate the rules you are applying here to not include them. Please add! |
|
I fully support this and it should be added imho. |
|
Bull is great wallet. If I hear someone curious about BTC I tell them to use Bull. It's simple and powerful. You can use it to "hide the wires" or to take complete and total control over how you want to manage your keys and UTXOs. Just compare its capabilities and features against the rest of the list and see how many boxes it checks 👀 I don't need any other wallet. On the note about the usage of Liquid. People who want to use bitcoin regularly don't want to accumulate fees and a bunch of small UTXOs. Pretending that fees and managing UTXOs outside BTC mainnet doesn't exist is not helpful. Combining useful features for users in a bitcoin wallet is the right choice. Otherwise, you just lose users to a CEX. Adding the Bull to list of wallets is a win for bitcoin users. Thanks for the consideration. |
|
I'd say list it, just disambiguate with explicit info. |
|
No brainer to add this |
|
Disclosure upfront: I'm part of the BULL wallet project, so take this with appropriate salt. But I think that's also exactly why my feedback is worth reading. I use BULL as my daily driver on mainnet and not just occasionally or for testing purposes, connected to my own self-hosted Electrum. I've also paired it with my Coldcard: the private key never touches the phone. Signing happens via PSBT on the air-gapped device, and the experience is great. Beyond my own use, I've onboarded a wide range of people with this wallet, starting with my own social circle. Complete beginners who've never held a sat and could experience receiving instant payments without any hassle. Intermediate users migrating from custodial apps or frustrated by Lightning channel maintenance and force closes. And of course, seasoned Bitcoiners with technical backgrounds. Across that whole spectrum, BULL holds up: beginners don't get lost, power users don't hit walls. And all of this with no distraction from what really matters: Bitcoin. On the Liquid/Lightning concern raised here: I understand the hesitation. But in practice, the wallet discourage long-term Liquid exposure and has safeguards to avoid it. It's a UX tradeoff to make Lightning accessible, and it's opt-in, not mandatory. Given that wallets already listed here have far more questionable relationships with altcoin ecosystems, I'd argue this is a conservative edge case being held to a stricter standard. Open source, reproducible, self-custodial, hardware wallet compatible, no custodian, no personal data collected, no phone home: BULL is the closest thing I've seen to a CypherPunk ethos made accessible to everyone. It deserves a spot on this list, in my humble opinion. |
|
Agree with all of the above, BULL is at least as mainnet-focused as Edge, Bitpay and Green, if not more. |
|
Disclosure: I'm head of support for BULL wallet at Bull Bitcoin. A few points from first-hand experience that may be relevant to the review: BULL is used as a daily driver by people across the full spectrum of Bitcoin knowledge, from complete beginners to long-time self-custody users. The UX holds up at both ends. In-app support chat is staffed 24/7 by experienced Bitcoiners. To my knowledge, no other wallet currently listed offers live in-app support from real humans with deep Bitcoin expertise. This matters a lot for the beginner audience bitcoin.org serves. RecoverBull, our encrypted vault protocol for seed backup, makes secure backups genuinely accessible for beginners while remaining robust enough for advanced users. Seed backup is consistently the biggest failure point I see in support, and this addresses it directly. The current mobile listings serve advanced users well, but there's a gap for a wallet that is genuinely beginner-friendly without compromising on self-custody, Bitcoin-only focus, or fee/network control. BULL fills that gap, and I believe listing it would strengthen the options bitcoin.org offers to its largest audience. |
|
The above feedback from the community is outstanding and should allow us to move forward with the formal review and search for some criteria which will allow us to list Bull without creating a precedence for allowing automatic "behind the scenes" conversions to non Bitcoin chains. (That said, just as a heads up, given current resources, it might be a little time before the actual formal review can be completed). Suggestions for modifications to the listing criteria, or the specific justification for a wavier (e.g. why this is different or unique from some other arbitrary wallet that automatically swaps to some other altcoin) to allow for listing, would be very welcome from the community. |
|
List it - it's my daily driver and has been for 6 months. It's the perfect wallet for ease of use and functionality. Massive privacy features and makes utxo management a breeze. Signed |
|
Supporting this addition. BULL stands out among mobile wallets for a few concrete reasons: Open source with real commitment: fully open-source with reproducible builds planned, backed by a team with long-term private funding dedicated to it. It's not a side project. Meaningful privacy features: first mobile wallet to implement serverless async Payjoin V2 (BIP-77), no push notifications, no IP tracking, encrypted secrets. These aren't checkboxes, they reflect serious engineering choices. Multi-layer flexibility without custody tradeoffs: supports onchain, Lightning, and Liquid with non-custodial atomic swaps, plus Coldcard hardware wallet and other wallets integration. Users get flexibility without sacrificing self-custody. Accessible to newcomers, useful for experts — the UX is designed to serve both. Bitcoin.org listing wallets that raise the bar on privacy and open-source practice is a net positive for the ecosystem. BULL earns its spot. |
|
I have over 5 years of experience with Bitcoin, and I’ve never had such a complete, smooth, and convenient user experience as with this wallet. That’s without even mentioning the buying experience, which in my country is extremely simple thanks to the integrated exchange—easily the best in that regard by far. It has never been this simple and appealing to convince my friends to get started with Bitcoin. The branding looks great. Any new user will immediately encounter two warnings: one that reminds you of the importance of backing up your seed phrase (which can be postponed), and another that remains on the main screen until the backup is completed. Screenshot attached: Indeed, the “Receive” option takes you directly to receive Bitcoin on-chain, and I don’t find it intrusive that there are options to receive via Lightning Network or Liquid. These are simply useful options for users who are willing to use Bitcoin as money and pay efficiently at local merchants. The app’s loading screen is very clear: “Be the owner of your money.” I don’t see why this wallet shouldn’t be listed as a recommended option, especially when there are several on the list that encourage users to explore altcoins, including Bitcoin Cash. That clearly goes against the Bitcoiner philosophy held by most of the community. I hope the above feedback is taken into account and that this gets resolved soon. – A Bitcoiner in the Central American jungle |
|
Suggestions for alternative Bitcoin payment networks (Ark, Spark, Liquid, etc.) These suggestions apply to wallets that use Liquid-based atomic swaps to offer Lightning payments to its users. Similar guidelines can be developed for wallets that use the Ark and Spark protocols, but they will be a bit different because Ark and Spark wallets should specifically provide tools that allow unilateral exit mechanisms in practice and not just in theory as well as, at least for Ark, vtxo renewal mechanisms. I can help with that if a wallet using Ark or Spark is submitted
Suggestion for disclaimer wording “This wallet uses non-custodial atomic swaps between the Liquid Network and the Lightning Network as a mechanism for receiving and sending Lightning payments. Funds on the Liquid network are not Bitcoin, they are a separate asset that is backed by Bitcoin with an auditable sidechain peg mechanism. Funds held on the Liquid network should not be considered safe for long-term storage and should be used exclusively for day-to-day transactions of low value. This wallet enforces an autoswap mechanism by default which prevents users from accumulating a Liquid Bitcoin balance of over 0.01 BTC.” |
|
First a note on the positive response from the community. Thanks for all the accolades; that certainly can contribute to the sufficient feedback criterion. However, I would just like to be clear that was not the current sticking point. Note that there is no provision that says "If the wallet is really, really good and useful, it's OK to ignore some of the criteria." I know that sounds a bit snarky and I don't mean it that way. I mean that sincerely. I don't believe there is any issue with the wallet (under specific conditions) swapping Bitcoin and Liquid assets. I've previously argued since it has been decided in the past that it was OK to allow buys and sells (e.g. swaps to fiat) it is also OK to allow swaps to other cryptocurrencies. I also don't believe there is any issue with the wallet allowing funds to be held on the Liquid blockchain. There are listed wallets that do that. I believe the current issue is that the Lightning component seems to falls under the "major Bitcoin wallet component" classification and retains funds in a non-Bitcoin asset on a non-Bitcoin blockchain. One potential workaround, for review purposes, may be to reclassify the Lightning/Liquid component of the wallet as a non-Bitcoin component by providing simple notifications to the user any place in the UI where a swap to Liquid may take place causing funds to be stored on the Liquid blockchain. An example point in the UI would be when the user chooses to receive funds via Lightning. (Note that this notification could useful to the user unrelated to meeting the listing criteria.) Perhaps the Bull project could comment on whether this approach sounds reasonable. [edited for grammar and readability] |
This is very reasonable. I had created a Liquid Network risk discloser UI element but it was removed during our UI refactoring. I'm going to take this opportunity to update the risk disclosure statement in a way that is generic so that other wallets can use it, create some screenshots of risk warning UI in the app and publish here for community review |
|
@BullishNode That sounds good. In the meantime, we can proceed with the formal review as resources allow. |
|
I've added a risk disclose first in the only place where a user could "accidentally" receive LBTC without knowing what he is doing (i.e. an incoming payment that triggers a swap from LBTC to Lightning) as well as on the Instant Payments Wallet card itself. Tapping the notice opens up the risk disclosure. If you think this is reasonable and can remove any issues with listing on bitcoin.org, I will merge the PR for it. Otherwise any comments are welcome. PR: https://github.com/SatoshiPortal/bullbitcoin-mobile/pull/2253/changes 
Here is the text of the risk disclosure: `The funds in the Instant Payment Wallet are not "real" Bitcoin. They are Keeping money on the Liquid Network is much safer than using a traditional Liquid Network payments are faster, cheaper and more private than regular The real-world value of the L-BTC depends on your ability to redeem them for For this reason, we recommend that you only keep small amounts in the Instant |
|
Thanks. The disclosure statement looks quite comprehensive.
Is there some other wording that might make it more obvious that payments are automatically being converted to Liquid and not Bitcoin? I'm just a little concerned that naive users might think L-BTC stands for something that actually is Bitcoin (such as Lightning-Bitcoin). |
Yeah I thought so as well I just wanted to conserve space in the ui. I think the least ambiguous would be "Payments will be converted to Liquid L-BTC (not BTC). Learn more." |
|
Updated: SatoshiPortal/bullbitcoin-mobile@0d54c4f For the record, the disclosure is entirely human-generated text by me |
|
That sounds unambiguous to me. Thanks. We can proceed with the formal review as resources allow. |
great thanks. Anything else needed from me here? |
|
@devdavidejesus anything needed from me at this point? |
We will begin the formal review process shortly. Thank you for your dedication and all the support you have provided. I truly appreciate it. |
15 participants
Adds BULL as a mobile wallet to the Wallets section.
Supported by Bull Bitcoin