Bitwarden is too functional and too affordable for me to really consider moving.

I use both. Proton pass is good because you can create, free of charge, up to 10 aliases for your proton mail account.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Shhhhh, don't give them ideas!

Since the vault is end-to-end encrypted, it shouldn’t matter where it is hosted, even if it is in the cloud. Here is what a security researcher and a password cracker Jeremy M. Gosney has said about this after the LastPass incident.

”Is the cloud the problem? No. The vast majority of issues LastPass has had have nothing to do with the fact that it is a cloud-based solution. Further, consider the fact that the threat model for a cloud-based password management solution should *start* with the vault being compromised. In fact, if password management is done correctly, I should be able to host my vault anywhere, even openly downloadable (open S3 bucket, unauthenticated HTTPS, etc.) without concern. I wouldn't do that, of course, but the point is the vault should be just that -- a vault, not a lockbox.”

What is your threatmodel here?

The problem for me with completely self hosting it is that it'll be relatively hard to get my backup, availability and sync requirements satisfied without a lot of effort.

Whereas I trust encryption in theory enough to hand my encrypted data to anyone. If the implementation is properly audited then I also trust that.

Most of my passwords are for accounts with 2fa anyway so even if both the storage leak and the encryption turn out to be subpar my threatmodel is still not violated.

If self-hosting makes you feel better about it, Vaultwarden exists for the Bitwarden client.

It‘s probably not but if you are in their ecosystem you might as well use it.

If you have a paid plan you can generate SimpleLogin aliases directly when generating a login on a webpage. It's a very nice feature.

This is all I want to know. If yes, I'll pass.

Firefox was first

Well,.Bitwarden is here for you. You can even self host Bitwarden and skip fees all together if you feel so inclined at some point.

While I don't particularly agree with the sentiment, those in the field of Computer Science could be argued to be "scientists", though often not in the classical sense. As a Computer Science major myself, I would never consider myself a "scientist" in the classical definition of the term. Those involved in actual research, yes, though that does not describe me despite the title of my Bachelor's. I would consider those involved in the theoretical side of Computer Science to be more akin to mathematicians, as most of the theory is based in mathematical proofs and models (take for instance the field describing formal computational models as a means to defining how computers operate, and how effective specific algorithms are in that context). Though I could understand the argument that those involved heavily in the theoretical side of Computer Science may be considered scientists, given their similarity to theoretical physicists. In that sense, there is also active experimentation to test hypotheses about algorithmic runtime. It's a fascinating niche of Computer Science that I studied briefly in university, but likely will not be pursuing in the future.

Generally those involved with active development of commercial software don't fit into that category, though. It's very much a question of semantics.

Just use wireguard directly, no need for an app