Bitcoin Forum

hi, i made an 8 of 8 multisig wallet on electrum with ledger in mainnet and moved a few sat there in there.
now i can't move them, i can't sign transactions with the ledger.
possible that there is a problem on electrum and wallet 8 of 8?
thank you.

Probably there are cosigners that are still using versions below 4.0.1.
Because the newer version's unsigned transactions are now in "Partially Signed Bitcoin Transaction" (PSBT) format
which is incompatible with the older version of Electrum or some other clients.

If all are using the same Electrum version, then please add more info like the errors and if possible, the logs.

Hope you are using the latest version of electrum? You created 8-of-8 multisig wallet, which means you will need the whole 8 multisig wallet setup private key for signing any created transaction, was it done like that? Hope the 8 multisig wallet setup are sychronizing with the blockchain with the devices used for it having online connections? These may likely be the problem.

the logs, the errors where do I see them?
if there are...

So all cosigners are using Electrum v4.0.1+ including your Ledger?

"Errors" as in the message you're getting when trying to sign the partially signed transaction.

Logs can be enabled in the setting: "Tools->Preferences->White logs to file", then close Electrum.
It will create a log file in "%appdata%\Electrum\logs" (for Windows) during the next session (try to sign it in that session for the issue to register there).

You have been answered, but my extra suggestion,

On the GUI, you can see the version of Electrum that was installed, you can download the latest version from https//electrum.org and verify its signature (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5240594.msg54223763#msg54223763), all the whole wallet for the multisig should be upgraded to the lastest version or as suggested by nc50lc.

Check the lowest left corner of you Electrum and the lower right corner, if it is written 'not connected' at the left corner and also red circle on the right corner, the electrum wallet is not connected and will not sychronize with the blockchain, but if the left side showed your balance instead of not connected and the right side showed green circle, it means your wallet is connected.

Not only you should do all these, also all other signers (your cosigners)

Signing a transaction doesn't require the wallet to be connected, in fact it can be done in an Air-Gap computer.

I'm thinking that it may be more of a hardware wallet issue than Electrum's since it's the Ledger that can't sign.

I also think it's problem with Ledger. Benchmark by CASA[1] shows some hardware wallet took long time to sign multi-sig address or failed due to PBST size.

[1] https://blog.keys.casa/bitcoin-multisig-hardware-signing-performance/ (https://blog.keys.casa/bitcoin-multisig-hardware-signing-performance/)

Seems like the only work around to this then is to take the seed phrase for the Ledger hardware wallet and import it in to a standard Electrum wallet and then sign the transaction from there.

Obviously once you have done this you should consider the seed phrase compromised and move all the coins held by this multi-sig wallet and any other wallet under the same seed phrase to a new wallet(s).

Problem is with crappy ledger device and not with electrum.
I would never suggest anyone to use ledger devices in multisig setup, and it was proven before they are not safe because they can't construct multisig properly or it can't be verified.
Ledger can't verify receiving address in multisig setup, change addresses also can't be verified and this can be a serious attack vector.
Ledger also doesn't show own xpug display on demand, for cosigner and it doesn't register xpubs inside the device.

Looking at this benchmark result, i would suggest different work around which is using fewer input. But it means you'll need to make multiple transaction and pay more fees.

https://blog.keys.casa/content/images/size/w1000/2020/09/Screenshot-from-2020-09-11-11-41-06.png

I had assumed since OP had said he "moved a few sats" in to that wallet, that there would only be a single input and his situation was differing slightly to the benchmarks in that link. But yeah, if it is possible to cut down the number of inputs in the transaction then that could potentially solve this issue as well, although he will still need to create a new wallet moving forward since this one is obviously not fit for purpose.

thanks for the replies