Yes I saw you can adjust it on Sparrow as well, but I don't know quite yet why Sparrow has a tendency to make the fee something like 1.3-1.4 sat/vByte even when I explicitly tell it do make it 1.
Where as Electrum would actually do it and not fool me (I was checking the transaction size and fee total value).
But it's fine now, I even did some multisig setups with Electrum now directly, also does the job.

Got it, thanks for letting me know.
I just did some test runs with with a 2 of 2 multisig setup with a Trezor and another Hardware Wallet. Successfully sent some dollars, wiped the devices, reactivated the seeds back onto them and recreated the initial multisig tree address and sent the funds back out from it.
Not sure if I should do another test run just to feel safer, haha. Before dumping in the big stack 

I was primarily looking for a setup to help me mitigate theoretical "software/bug" scenarios (or maybe the good old Exit Scam myth) in devices, so I will likely opt in now for 2 of 2 multisig and use single sheets of paper for seeds until later on in life when the stack is big enough to feel a need to do 2 of 3 via collaborative custody (and when I feel more comfortable with multisig of this kind).

For now I will experiment a bit more with air-gapped signing operations until I get the hang of it.

Hello everyone,
I am currently tinkering around with small fund amounts to learn how to use Multisig and I came across something weird that I cannot quite figure out myself.
In short, I set up a multisig 2 of 3 on Sparrow that was 1 software wallet (seedwords directly into the local machine) + 2 other hardware wallets.

I didn't quite like it that Sparrow would not let me lowball the fees as much as I wanted so I decided to export this Multisig wallet to a format compatible with Electrum wallet.
When I got to signing the transaction as I wanted it to, I ended up being asked to only provide signing by one of the hardware wallets (I supposed the seedphrase from the local software wallet also got expored).
Here is the part that worries me:
On Electrum if I go to Wallet > Private Keys > Export and I happen to want to open that, it will actually open a list of the miltisig address tree together with what appear to be secret keys (P2WSH type), without even asking me for a hardware wallet or it even being connected to the local machine, just the local software wallet seems to be enough.

Now maybe I am missing something here, even the Electrum software itself tells me in a warning message:
"WARNING: This is a multi-signature wallet.
It cannot be "backed up" by simply exporting these private keys."

I just got spooked it still does display some private keys. So are these keys legit or just some private keys needed in part of the software seed to make the whole scheme work?
My initial impression was they were somehow the actually private elements of the corresponding Multisig addresses listed on this wallet.
Just wanted to hear your thoughts on this. I might be just worried for nothing seeing this stuff (since my expectations were: no access to hardware wallets, no showing private keys)

Thanks everyone for the input so far.
Yes, it seems the public elements are also needed. I never encountered this issue so far because previously I was running single signature, and the secret keys were enough to generate the single public keys.
But it's not that bad. Sparrow for example allows you to export the Public keys/Output Descriptor even as a PDF so that you can even print it out and keep a paper version of it.
Not impossible to manage.

Understood, so basically just the Secret elements (2 seedphrases) are not sufficient. One still does need access to the 3 Public elements of this scheme to exist somewhere in order to be able to reconstruct this map.
Thanks for confirming. With this in mind I will know better what to do to plan a good recovery scheme. 👍

In the meantime I came across this video which pretty much also confirms it. They seem to be called Output Descriptors, the pieces of information that allow for this map to be navigated/used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X5LygNovLU

Hello everyone,
I just got myself some hardware devices from different companies in an attempt to reduce that risk surface of "one entity/company pulling a exit scam". Of course, kind of unlikely, but why not learn Multisig to mitigate this risk (helps with software/code vulnerabilities too).
Anyway, here is my question:

I want to set up 2 of 3 multisig. I noticed those 3 elements are initially needed to set up/create this scheme.
What happens if somehow I totally lose access to one of these seedphrases/elements, zpub included (even the common one).
Let's say I somehow end up in a situation where I will have access to only two seedphrases, are these enough to create a 2 of 2 multisig that has similar properties or will that 3rd element still be needed?

In the classic setup with single signature seed backup, the seed itself is enough to derive the list of addresses and the rest.
Are 2 out of 3 seeds enough to generate that same address tree if I try to use them to make a 2 out of 2 setup? I noticed all devices seem to go for this derivation path: m/48'/0'/0'/2'

I hope the question was clear enough  , the reason I got this curiosity now is because of backup procedures.
I am now left wondering if I should worry only about the seeds primarily or also if I must seek to make backups of the respective xpub/zpub information for these respective seeds to rebuilt at a later date.

Thanks for your time, I hope some of you can help me out here.

I ended up messing up something on the laptop with the packages and had to reinstall the OS.
But turns out that version 23 of bitcoin core runs without problems. I guess there was something in the code maybe of version 24. *shrug*
Also yeah, moving the chainstate directory to an SSD makes things significantly faster. 

Thanks everyone for your inputs.
Also sorry NotATether, I guess there won't be crash reports we can learn from. :/
Still very much appreciated.

Here is some snapshots of the system as it runs via the "sensors" command.

coretemp-isa-0000
Adapter: ISA adapter
Package id 0:  +52.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
Core 0:        +52.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
Core 1:        +46.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
Core 2:        +45.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)
Core 3:        +43.0°C  (high = +86.0°C, crit = +100.0°C)

acpitz-acpi-0
Adapter: ACPI interface
temp1:        +50.0°C  (crit = +98.0°C)
temp2:        +50.0°C  (crit = +98.0°C)

I hope it helps.

I tried running the software as simply "bitcoind" to see on the terminal how it does. Nothing out of the ordinary, the PC did not seem to struggle. Just the process being suddenly gone.
Alright, I installed lm-sensors, but also got no idea how to use it. Currently looking up details about its usage for logging.
About Core behavior:
It just run as usual, doing its tasks, then Boom. Suddenly all its windows vanish, taking with it even the terminal window in which it was running.

Thanks for the input so far.
I am surprised my laptop cannot handle it and keeps crash closing the client. The minimum requirements listed here were met by it: https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/features/requirements
Laptop specs:
Ram 4 GB (and has additional 8GB swap on a SSD inside it)
CPU: Intel® Core™ i7-2630QM CPU @ 2.00GHz × 8
OS name: Ubuntu 22.04.1 LTS

Here is some additional info that I am now starting to wonder if affects how this plays out:
The client I ended up installing was bitcoin-24.0-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz, I got from here: https://binarywatch.org/
Now I didn't see this posted yet on https://bitcoincore.org
I am now in doubt if what I got is not a stable release. Would it have been wiser to just go for bitcoin core version 23? Maybe I should remove it and install this version...

Here is another thing:
The home folder of this linux install is set up on a HDD, while the rest of the directories are on an SSD. Still, I hope this is fine for the program.
When I ran the "whereis" command on "bitcoin-qt", it seems the client is located in the "/usr/local/bin/bitcoin-qt" directory. I wanted to use the HDD just for storage, seems to work.

Hope this helps, any ideas what I could try out?

Well I did start it from the terminal via the terminal, in a way. I can run the GUI only buy using the "bitcoin-qt" command, which keeps the terminal open at the same time too.
But when the thing crashes, everything vanishes at the same time, terminal window and bitcoin GUI. So there was nothing left for me to see.

What do you recommend as PC specs to do the task of just simply being a bitcoin node? I thought that laptop would be enough, I didn't think it would be so bad. 

Understood.
The debug file seems to filled with lines like this, all of them similar, nothing different until the end. Last 3 lines in that file:
2022-12-01T16:11:55Z UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000000b352f8a21cb1d82cf812a4d9e9c7a824a1b0ba7db674556 height=379750 version=0x00000003 log2_work=83.496117 tx=88597513 date='2015-10-20T13:35:08Z' progress=0.112985 cache=67.0MiB(175336txo)
2022-12-01T16:11:55Z UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000000d9621377fab43507e389851456d6bccb5198656f7e0003f height=379751 version=0x00000003 log2_work=83.496145 tx=88597514 date='2015-10-20T13:35:49Z' progress=0.112985 cache=67.0MiB(175337txo)
2022-12-01T16:11:56Z UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000005f9e1880678545ac43a5abeb736943e5f460b4aadd41b0e height=379752 version=0x00000003 log2_work=83.496172 tx=88600149 date='2015-10-20T14:16:58Z' progress=0.112989 cache=67.5MiB(180044txo)

About the crash reports, I am rather new to this. Where and how does one view crash reports on the linux system? 

Hello everyone.
In case this was asked before I hope some of you can guide me.
So I am trying to set up a full node too, but on an older machine. But the laptop itself is not that bad. Intel CPU is 2.00 GHz x 8, 4 GB Ram.
I set it up with a 2TB HDD so that it can house the blockchain.

I am running the core client on Ubuntu 22.04.1 LTS, and I just don't know where to start in finding out why it just runs for a couple minutes, then suddenly vanishes/crashes.
This is with the GUI client. I have not yet tried out the CLI version only.
I tried to reduce in the settings the DBcache to 300 MB, but still seems to do this.
What is the process one can follow in an attempt to find out why the client just decides to close itself out of the blue?
Thanks a lot in advance.

Thanks everyone for coming in and dropping some knowledge.
Yeah, my general sense is now that if you're doing small stuff, I guess you can get away with using these platforms (at the cost of KYC and other bad aspects).
But if you want to spin big money, it is a liability to use these entities. Yikes!
This time I will be fine because I'm a small fish in this big pond.

Hey guys,
I'll keep it short. I buy bitcoin via online exchanges and then also always withdraw to personal wallets.
As I am listening to discussions about how this FTX mess will evolve, I see some folk saying how the US has some Clawback laws in terms of bankruptcy which are there to protect credits that were not paid back.
So now my obvious questions/doubts are:
"Wait a second, so I could start seeing in the future letters from lawfirms or such saying I gotta give back the money I withdrew so that other people that lost money get some back?"
I mean for the creditors it would make sense, and defintely piss off people like me that just use these exchanges as means to get what I want.

But if this were true, then I would ask myself: what is the point of ever touching exchanges and even having those withdraw buttons there if any exchange that goes belly up could get enforced by the US to have funds be called back? (I suppose allied countries will usually assist US actions, to have nice relationships with them. And cuz of KYC they know who you are and put some legal pressure on you).

But yeah, you get the idea.
So could it be that in the future I will be told to give money back because I happened to use FTX?

Thanks for you time!

Thanks to everyone for the input. When I spoke about the memorizing part, I meant it for the edge-case purpose of crossing a border or just taking your money away with you in your head until you reach a safer place.
Yes, I do have physical copies of it too indeed, our memory is not reliable.

I also had a look online and found this video which has some interesting takes too: https://youtu.be/2hrXeuYOelM
So yeah. Seems like so far doing physical backups of seedwords and passphrases is good enough for the cold storage.

Hello everyone,
There is a question that often came to my mind but I never much asked around, so I'm hoping some of you can give me feedback/opinion.
I was wondering what the security trade-offs are between 12 word vs 24 seed words are? I personally like using 12 seed words since you can also memorize them yourself more easily, but I was wondering if the less entropy/randomness of such a seed would be a problem vs the 24 variant?
I see that wallets still offer support for 12 word seed, even some of them let you generate them (making me think they are still very secure to this day).

So in essence my question would be:
Am I doing something horribly wrong by using 12 word seeds and not the 24 word one, not realising risks I could be exposing myself to? (I will add that I do use a password on top of these words as well)

Thanks for your time, hope to get some insights from you all.