Why would you highly recommend not to consolidate the inputs?...
Because multiple UTXOs can be beneficial in the future where OP may need to spend an entire UTXO without creating change. Also for privacy reasons, because consolidating them is not a good choice. Don't give me the Wasabi consolidation argument once more. I understand you like it but I don't like it so it's not worth trying to convince me. There is also no need to suggest Wasabi every single time. There are multiple tools for multiple use cases. Using only wasabi products for everything is not a good choice any way you decide to see it. |
|
|
|
OP's concern is about his privacy from his Whirlpool coinjoin being ruined from consolidation: If they're all consolidated, you've just undone all the mixing previously.
With a WabiSabi coinjoin, he can privately consolidate his 20 UTXOs into one UTXO if he wants to (depending on their value), or he can split it into multiple coinjoin outputs in case he wants UTXOs of specific sizes. I highly recommend NOT to consolidate the inputs. Use whatever tool you wish, but I would also recommend what o_e_l_e_o said. Just send every UTXO in various time intervals and you will be more than ok. Keep it simple. That's my opinion, but I must say I am biased because I don't trust Wasabi at all. |
|
|
|
Why do you always suggest WabiSabi? OP clearly doesn't want to consolidate the inputs. I don't know how this wabisabi works but I think it is not what op wants
WabiSabi coinjoins allow you to consolidate inputs without revealing they are owned by the same person. It's exactly what OP needs. Consolidation is a process where you get multiple inputs and produce one output. Are you sure this is what OP needs? Because I think he wants to maintain multiple UTXOs. Which is btw the best thing to do. |
|
|
|
Thanks for all the feedback. I think sending UTXOs one by one is the best option and swallow the fees.
Why don't you save fees by privately consolidating your UTXOs in a WabiSabi coinjoin instead? Why do you always suggest WabiSabi? OP clearly doesn't want to consolidate the inputs. I don't know how this wabisabi works but I think it is not what op wants |
|
|
|
|
As Charles-Tim said, Sparrow is a great wallet. It has multiple features that you will find useful.
1. Built-in coinjoin using whirlpool.
2. Very good UI.
3. Timelock, RBF, CPFP and much more.
4. Brilliant documentation online. One of the easiest to read.
5. Great support, especially on Telegram.
6. Great development, fully open-source.
Finally, my favorite thing: connection to your own node without the need for an electrum server. Simply connects to Bitcoin Core with literally 2 clicks.
I have no relation with Sparrow of course, but I really love it.
Electrum is fantastic too!
|
|
|
|
But, a multisig vault can have some advantages compared to the singlesig wallet
I agree with most that you write, I just want to add some video of Andreas about multi-signature: MultiSig is NOT the best option for most people to store their bitcoin [June 2023]Also Multisignature transactions need more space and it waste more fees each time that you want to create a new transaction. As experiment it is OK and its up to each person to use it or not, but i think that a single 12 word seed and 24 words bip39 seed have enough security always that you don't leak or mesh up your seed Yeah I have seen this video and I have also seen another one where Andreas says that multisig is an overkill for everyday people. In my opinion it all comes down to usability. I would go for a multisig wallet, for its ease of use, even if it is more difficult to setup and also easier to mess it up. I think I know my limits well enough to choose it. But, as you said, people go for multisig solutions only because of them being more secure, but, nothing is secure enough if you make stupid mistakes, right?! |
|
|
|
Question is what's the best strategy to now go to the desired end state:
Singlesig (offline-wallet) --> Multisig (offline-wallet) In that case, you don't really have any option other than sending the UTXOs from one wallet to the other and paying the transaction fee each time. Why do you want to move the coins to a multi-sig wallet? Is your offline wallet no longer secure? Is leaving the coins where they are not an option? If you do still want to send them across, then you can either wait until fees are lower or just bite the bullet and pay the fees. You will have to spread the transactions out over a period of time so they are not obviously linked together. You could potentially consolidate two or three of the UTXOs together each time to save on fees if you are happy with the privacy implications of doing so. albert0bsd had the same question. I believe OP wants to ameliorate his setup and I don't believe it is a bad idea. But since two members of this forum found this curious, I can't help but ask, why? I mean don't you think it is a good idea to move the coins to a better setup? Of course provided that the multisig vault will be properly set up. Fully airgapped, different devices, proper backups etc. Yes! a properly set up singlesig wallet, where the seed phrase is produced from a permanently airgapped device, where the backups are stored offline in separate locations, where you add a strong passphrase that provides >128 bits of entropy is safe. But, a multisig vault can have some advantages compared to the singlesig wallet: 1. In terms of safety, I reckon that both wallets are impossible to get compromised with brute-force. 2. In terms of theft, then the multisig vault is safer because the attacker will find one backup and they have no clue that you have set a multisig vault with another wallet. They will probably think of bruteforcing the passphrase though. 3. In terms of physical disaster, multisig and singlesig are equal if you have backed up the signers properly. 4. In terms of usage, signing a transaction with a multisig is much easier, because you can create a PSBT with the 1st cosigner and then sign with the rest of them, bringing the PSBT to the rest of the signers. However, with singlesig you need to get the passphrase where the device is, unless you remember it, but this is highly unlikely with a proper random passphrase. 5. In terms of fees, provided that we talk about the same amount of inputs and outputs, singlesig is cheaper. Having said all that, I want to make clear that multisig creates a false sense of security. Multisig is in general safer, indeed, but you must know what you do and avoid obvious mistakes. Multisig is not a panacea. Supposing that OP knows all the dangers and follows all the necessary measures, then, according to the list above, I think moving to a multisig is not a bad idea. But if the only motivation is security, OP must know that a proper singlesig wallet with a strong random passphrase is safe enough. |
|
|
|
I also have this utxo problem but probably yours is different from mine. Mine is trying to send BTC from trust wallet to another bitcoin wallet but finding it difficult to send. it's showing"unable to transfer due to dust utxo error" and I have up to $20 in it. I contracted a friend he advised me to use electron wallet to inport my pass phrase and transfer to another wallet, by reducing the sat/vbyte. I did but I used blue wallet for the transaction but yet haven't reacieved the amount I sent. What is the possible cause Please?
This normally means that some utxos you want to spend are too small and they don't cover the fees. How many utxos constitute the 20 dollars you mention? Are there any very small UTXOs? I don't know if you can do coin control and see the UTXOs in Trust Wallet. With a good wallet, you should and as youfriend said , use electrum. You will be able to send the "big" UTXO fully or reduce the fee as you said. For a better explanation refer to this topic https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5452328.0 |
|
|
|
I saw the same announcement today, but that shouldn't be the reason why the transaction isn't working. Even their announcement says that them leaving the play stores for American clients doesn't affect existing customers and their transactions and balances on WOS. You just can't find and install the software on Google Play Store or the App Store. At least, I hope there is another explanation to this.
I think everyone who already owns the app will see no problems at all, indeed. At least this is what I heard on a podcast ( https://open.spotify.com/episode/7yN7tNTIJFVEqQuJvTjsIm). |
|
|
|
I am seeing two potential issues though... I'm not sure I follow you. From what OP has said, his outputs are already in Whirlpool: If you have a wallet with say >20 UTXOs that were previously mixed using Whirlpool (resulting in equal amounts), how can you best move then to another wallet. Given that, and given he wants to move them from Whirlpool to another wallet, then the "mix to external xpub" option is the best option. You are absolutely right. I deleted my post, to avoid confusion. In that case, there is no better option than the one you mentioned above. |
|
|
|
|
Companies change CEOs often. The real question for a company is when does the new CEO completely changes the behaviour of the company. In my opinion CZ's approach will always guide Binance into being an ordinary CEX like the rest of them.
|
|
|
|
He can avoid this size restriction with a WabiSabi coinjoin, you can create outputs with arbitrary values.
Ok, thanks for pointing this out, however I don't use Wasabi or anything related to it. I am not going to criticise it here, we have done that a lot in other topics. I don't ignore your suggestion, I am just focusing on the tools I know how they work and I know I can help. So, you can create a helpful post for OP where you can give all the advice you want, using whatever tools you wish and I will do the same in a separate post for the tools that I know. I think it's better this way. Another thing is why you want to move to another wallet?
If there is not need to touch that balance, then is better to wait for low fees.. The only reason to move all to another wallet is if the current seed or hdkey was compromised somehow... (In this case privacy doesn't matter)
After all other member recommendations, i strongly recommend don't move it unless it was compromised
Perhaps it is not compromised but OP wants to ameliorate his set-up, moving to a multisig for example. OP can use both wallets, of course, but I don't think it is a bad process. Of course, if it is not compromised, I also suggest OP to wait for better fees. |
|
|
|
|
I agree with o_e_l_e_o.
The way I did it when I wanted to change was:
1. I sent some UTXOs separately in various times (1 utxo today, 1 two weeks later, 1 one minute later etc).
2. The rest of them I used o_e_l_e_o's process, it worked smoothly.
The only thing I don't like with this option (2) is that most of the coins will move from wallet A to B in in close moments of time.
Ιf this doesn't bother you, then follow his advice. It is the best you can get.
|
|
|
|
In case someone runs an Umbrel node, Robosats is built-in and is super easy to use! I have used it really a lot. Of course Robosats can be installed from scratch, but I needed to clarify how easy it is to run it on an Umbrel node. |
|
|
|
if all the people in this topic truly believed all btc was fungible and there was no difference between one bitcoin vs one bitcoin... they would not be also trying to promote that people should use mixers
if the coin you have had nothing bad about it and was no difference. why need to change it
Because I want nobody to know how many coins I own. Simple as that. Mixers don't erase history. Mixers make it impossible to tell for sure which input is linked to Which output. |
|
|
|
|
I have been running a monero node on an old laptop.
However, I need this laptop for other purposes now so I plan to set up a new node on a raspberry Pi that runs Raspbian.
I will run both bitcoin and monero nodes on the same machine. Do you think it is possible?
I think I won't have an issue running both of them. I have an SSD with 2TB capacity.
|
|
|
|
It shows you are more interested in hurting Bitcoin than promoting privacy.
If you say this to o_e_l_e_o then I can only imagine what you say about all the rest  It's one of the worst accusations you could make. When we say Monero is good for privacy, why do we hurt Bitcoin? Do you really suppose that Bitcoin has anything to fear? Apart from that, privacy in Bitcoin can be achieved with multiple coinjoin options, not only with the WabiSabi coinjoins. I use Jam (Joinmarket) and Whirlpool. I feel good and safe! I also do Monero swaps and I also feel good about it. |
|
|
|
If a pool decides to censor a transaction, then another pool will sooner or later mine it. If lots of them start censoring, then miners will begin migrating elsewhere for the sake of the profit.
This absolutely true and exactly my point in this post: |
|
|
|
If you think that tainted coins and addresses will have the same value with clean coins then i don't know what to say.
Yes! I do think these coins have the exact same value! No worries, I don't want you to say anything. Keep doing what think is best. Cheers! Only a fool would pay to get those coins .
Ok! If someone offered you to buy all the usdt that's in banned addresses would you buy it at 1/100 of it's real value ? or would you consider those wasted money ?
What is USDT? Edit: You mean Tether. Tether is a stablecoin pegged to the US Dollar. A stablecoin is a type of cryptocurrency whose value is pegged to another fiat currency like the US Dollar or to a commodity like Gold. No I wouldn't buy this anyway. I would only accept it as a gift, only if I could convert it to BTC. |
|
|
|
Well , i don't think so . Reality shows the opposite https://b10c.me/observations/08-missing-sanctioned-transactions/?tMined bitcoins that never moved or newly minted are not the same as the ones that have a transaction history . There will be a huge demand for those in the future as more and more cases like the OFAC one come forward . This is a potential threat that some miners comply with the "rules" that organizations and governments try to apply in order to hold Bitcoin back. What I do know is that 1ECeZBxCVJ8Wm2JSN3Cyc6rge2gnvD3W5K successfully moved to 16r7U7GqbVPeKukgfd3mUN9LCkuoKbfpXM in this block https://mempool.space/block/00000000000000000001bae714c1fbc509fcc40dac3ade7becff09ccd772a3f6 on 2023-09-21 06:59 This has nothing to do with fungibility. The recipient received many inputs of 0.0002 BTC. All of them are equal. The difference is that some miners will comply with the regulations that authoriarian governments make. It's not a problem though. The address 1ECeZBxCVJ8Wm2JSN3Cyc6rge2gnvD3W5K paid 16r7U7GqbVPeKukgfd3mUN9LCkuoKbfpXM again in this transaction https://mempool.space/tx/34e962671a1da560ada50c453e4f41443ca44cb084dda0d45799e2fbc7a84128 on 2023-10-12 05:07 Bitcoin is ok after all. Let them try harder! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
