Wallet Logo

Lunes Wallet - Lunes, Bitcoin, Litecoin, Buy BTC

Latest release: 2.1 ( 6th December 2018 ) 🔍 Last analysed 29th December 2021 . No source for current release found Not functioning anymore
4.1 ★★★★★
272 ratings
10 thousand
31st January 2018

Jump to verdict 

Older reviews (show 0 of 1 reproducible)

Do your own research!

Try out searching for "lost bitcoins", "stole my money" or "scammers" together with the wallet's name, even if you think the wallet is generally trustworthy. For all the bigger wallets you will find accusations. Make sure you understand why they were made and if you are comfortable with the provider's reaction.

If you find something we should include, you can create an issue or edit this analysis yourself and create a merge request for your changes.

The Analysis 

Update 2021-07-15: As Emanuel already noticed in March ‘21, this provider did not release the source of the latest version. Without source, the app is not verifiable.

Update 2020-08-30: Alan Gabriel offered a link to this repository in our issue tracker.

Indeed that looks like the wallet’s source code but the Readme.md doesn’t look like a well maintained project. The first line <<<<<<< HEAD is the residue from a merge gone bad.

Given the last change is more than 2 years old and it looks like an abandoned project and there are no build instructions for a production release, we give up after this error:

$ git clone https://github.com/Lunes-platform/Wallet-mobile
$ cd Wallet-mobile/
$ docker run -it --volume $PWD:/mnt --workdir /mnt --rm walletscrutiny/android:4 bash
# apt update && apt install nodejs npm -y
# npm install
# cd android/
# ./gradlew assembleRelease
...
FAILURE: Build failed with an exception.

* Where:
Build file '/mnt/node_modules/react-native-linear-gradient/android/build.gradle' line: 21

* What went wrong:
A problem occurred evaluating project ':react-native-linear-gradient'.
> Could not find method compileOnly() for arguments [com.facebook.react:react-native:+] on object of type org.gradle.api.internal.artifacts.dsl.dependencies.DefaultDependencyHandler.

and consider it not verifiable.

(lw)

Verdict Explained

Without public source of the reviewed release available, this product cannot be verified!

As part of our Methodology, we ask:

No Source!

Is the source code publicly available?

If the answer is "no", we mark it as "No source for current release found".

A wallet that claims to not give the provider the means to steal the users’ funds might actually be lying. In the spirit of “Don’t trust - verify!” you don’t want to take the provider at his word, but trust that people hunting for fame and bug bounties could actually find flaws and back-doors in the wallet so the provider doesn’t dare to put these in.

Back-doors and flaws are frequently found in closed source products but some remain hidden for years. And even in open source security software there might be catastrophic flaws undiscovered for years.

An evil wallet provider would certainly prefer not to publish the code, as hiding it makes audits orders of magnitude harder.

For your security, you thus want the code to be available for review.

If the wallet provider doesn’t share up to date code, our analysis stops there as the wallet could steal your funds at any time, and there is no protection except the provider’s word.

“Up to date” strictly means that any instance of the product being updated without the source code being updated counts as closed source. This puts the burden on the provider to always first release the source code before releasing the product’s update. This paragraph is a clarification to our rules following a little poll.

We are not concerned about the license as long as it allows us to perform our analysis. For a security audit, it is not necessary that the provider allows others to use their code for a competing wallet. You should still prefer actual open source licenses as a competing wallet won’t use the code without giving it careful scrutiny.

But we also ask:

Defunct!

Is the product still supported by the still existing provider?

If the answer is "no", we mark it as "Not functioning anymore".

Discontinued products or worse, products of providers that are not active anymore, are problematic, especially if they were not formerly reproducible and well audited to be self-custodial following open standards. If the provider hasn’t answered inquiries for a year but their server is still running or similar circumstances might get this verdict, too.