That’s a fair criticism. Aura is a hot wallet on a network-connected phone, so it should not be presented as equivalent to cold storage; the trust boundary includes the OS and the app-update chain.
Recovery uses BIP39/BIP32 with standard BIP44, BIP49, and BIP84 derivation, so compatibility is the floor, not a selling point. CI currently checks TypeScript and linting, wallet invariants, official Bitcoin vectors, signing tests, CodeQL, and an Android build. But to be precise: we do not yet publish reproducible-build proof that matches the App Store binary to a source commit. That is a real gap, and we should document and close it rather than hand-wave it.
The practical differentiation we’re aiming for is transparent recovery across common derivation paths, custom Electrum-server support, coin control, multisig, and a focused mobile UX. Those features only matter if the release process is verifiable. Your comment makes reproducible releases the clearest next trust milestone—thank you.
That’s a fair criticism. Aura is a hot wallet on a network-connected phone, so it should not be presented as equivalent to cold storage; the trust boundary includes the OS and the app-update chain.
Recovery uses BIP39/BIP32 with standard BIP44, BIP49, and BIP84 derivation, so compatibility is the floor, not a selling point. CI currently checks TypeScript and linting, wallet invariants, official Bitcoin vectors, signing tests, CodeQL, and an Android build. But to be precise: we do not yet publish reproducible-build proof that matches the App Store binary to a source commit. That is a real gap, and we should document and close it rather than hand-wave it.
The practical differentiation we’re aiming for is transparent recovery across common derivation paths, custom Electrum-server support, coin control, multisig, and a focused mobile UX. Those features only matter if the release process is verifiable. Your comment makes reproducible releases the clearest next trust milestone—thank you.