Multibit HD vs Electrum which is better?

[Skarner21]

Guys let me know if what wallet is much better.. do you think there is different of sending bitcoins or more faster than the opponent wallet?
I am planning to transfer my funds into multibit hd due to more fee asking for dynamic fees. even we can send miners fee with exact amount..

[HCP]

The sending speed of bitcoins is generally not related to the wallet you use, but is more dependent on how "busy" the bitcoin network is and the fees that you use.

- If you sent Transaction A with 150 satoshi/byte fee from MultibitHD and Transaction B with the same 150 satoshi/byte fee from Electrum at the same time, chances are they would both take the same number of blocks to be confirmed.
- If you sent Transaction A with 200 satoshi/byte fee from MultibitHD and Transaction B with 50 satoshi/byte fee from Electrum, you'd probably find Transaction A would confirm first.
- If you sent Transaction A with 50 satoshi/byte fee from MultibitHD and Transaction B with 200 satoshi/byte fee from Electrum, you'd probably find that Transaction B would confirm first.

The end result being, that it doesn't really matter which wallet you use, just use proper fees and your transactions will confirm quickly.

You should try not to use "exact amount" fees, unless you are sure you know what you're doing and have checked that the fee meets the appropriate satoshi/byte fee level that you want.

Remember, fees should be based on the data size of the transaction, not the amount of bitcoins being sent. If you send a transaction for 0.001 that uses say 10 dust inputs, it will be larger in terms of data size (and require a larger fee) than a transaction that sends 1 btc but uses only 1 input.

[ranochigo]

There's no difference with either of them. The main thing about Electrum is that it offers a lot more features than MultiBit HD and the dynamic fee would give a good estimation for your transaction fee. You can always adjust the slider or set a manual fee.

In my experience, Electrum has always been rather stable for me and there is no reason why you would change.

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

If you do a forum search you will find plenty of complaints about Multibit HD being a buggy piece of software with poor support. On the other hand Electrum is pretty much praised and well supported. I can tell you from my own experience that Multibit HD did not play well with my security suite and firewall and I finally deleted it. Latest Electrum supports dynamic fees and RBF and the most popular hardware wallets. It also comes in a portable version unlike any other bitcoin wallet. Try to find someone who hated Electrum so much they uninstalled it.

[Herbert2020]

try them both! it is simple. you can even install a virtual machine/ sandbox and try installing each wallet and testing their features and then choose one to use as your main real wallet.

my opinion is to go with Electrum. it gives you much more options to work with. Multibit is mostly for those who don't want any options and just want to receive and send without having access to private keys, changing fee, coin control and lots more. but you get all that in Electrum.

[swogerino]

Multibit HD developers appears to not be very interested in further improving their software. A lot of bugs reported for this wallet with one of the most talked one being stuck funds in it. Sometimes repairing the wallet works, sometimes it does not. This software needs a lot of improvements to bring it back where it were before Keepkey took over from old developers. Multibit Classic which was made by the old developers didn't have so many problems and bugs.

[Quickseller]

It is my understanding that as a Multibit HD user, you need to pay a small fee to the Multibit devs in each transaction. This not only increases the costs of using Multibit because of this fee, but also because of the higher necessary TX fee as a result of the extra output (and sometimes extra input in order to pay for this fee).

It is not a good idea to run any kind of wallet software that is generating any seeds and/or private keys and/or signing transactions on a VM as VMs have very bad random number generation.

[ranochigo]

It is my understanding that as a Multibit HD user, you need to pay a small fee to the Multibit devs in each transaction. This not only increases the costs of using Multibit because of this fee, but also because of the higher necessary TX fee as a result of the extra output (and sometimes extra input in order to pay for this fee).

It is not a good idea to run any kind of wallet software that is generating any seeds and/or private keys and/or signing transactions on a VM as VMs have very bad random number generation.

Actually, IIRC, there should be an option where you can pay the fees for several transactions beforehand.

Anyways, Multibit has removed it since v0.3[1].

[1] https://multibit.org/blog/2016/04/18/multibit-hd-release-0.3.0.html

[shamzblueworld]

I am using Multibit HD since I started using bitcoin, have not tried any other but I have found it very user friendly and not discovered any bugs or anything problematic. So didn't need to try another one, so far so good for me.
So maybe you should try them both and see which one you like better.

[pooya87]

It is my understanding that as a Multibit HD user, you need to pay a small fee to the Multibit devs in each transaction. This not only increases the costs of using Multibit because of this fee, but also because of the higher necessary TX fee as a result of the extra output (and sometimes extra input in order to pay for this fee).

It is not a good idea to run any kind of wallet software that is generating any seeds and/or private keys and/or signing transactions on a VM as VMs have very bad random number generation.

Actually, IIRC, there should be an option where you can pay the fees for several transactions beforehand.

Anyways, Multibit has removed it since v0.3[1].

[1] https://multibit.org/blog/2016/04/18/multibit-hd-release-0.3.0.html

haha, yeah i still remember those days. it was pretty funny and shameful. they decided to ask for a fee to let people use their wallet and majority of Mutibit users left for other wallet clients and there was even talk of forking Multibit and removing the shameful feature and release it as a third party (i don't know if anybody did that though).
and after a while when it failed miserably, they removed the feature.

[Kakumei]

For me personally I used Multi-Bit HD as it is what I used from the start and I find it of much convenience.

[BitMaxz]

In my own experience they are both the same.. since i am new user of multibit HD and old user of electrum and  i think the speed of transaction just like other said is it depends in the network.. also in the miners fee if you are paying small fee for every transaction possible that you can confirm slow..
For now You need to relay in transaction size  and fees to know what will be possible fees you can check here https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

[pooya87]

~ fees you can check here https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

that site is good to see some information about fees but it is not always giving accurate information. specially when the mempool is practically empty and fees are low again.
just use your Electrum wallet, that fee suggestion has been on point so far for me.
or see https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/ in the middle of the page it has fee suggestion.

[Skarner21]

~ fees you can check here https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

that site is good to see some information about fees but it is not always giving accurate information. specially when the mempool is practically empty and fees are low again.
just use your Electrum wallet, that fee suggestion has been on point so far for me.
or see https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/ in the middle of the page it has fee suggestion.

Do you think the blockcypher.com can give a accurate estimate fee? well i check the site and saw that the 3rd one is the lowest which is    0.00076 BTC/KB
Do you think if we set the fee on electrum you will pay for exact amount of 0.00076 every transaction if you set it or it will determine the transaction size first?

[ranochigo]

Do you think the blockcypher.com can give a accurate estimate fee? well i check the site and saw that the 3rd one is the lowest which is    0.00076 BTC/KB
Do you think if we set the fee on electrum you will pay for exact amount of 0.00076 every transaction if you set it or it will determine the transaction size first?

For Electrum, if you choose dynamic fee, the client factors in the network load and the transaction size. If you go to preference, you can also choose a fixed fee or manual fee. If you choose fixed fee, the transaction is paid according to the transaction size and your fee that you set. If you use manual fee, you can put the fee, regardless of the transaction size.

Personally, I'll just go with Electrum's dynamic fee. It is quite accurate with the estimation and its pointless to go to other sites and manually input your fee.

[pooya87]

~ fees you can check here https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

that site is good to see some information about fees but it is not always giving accurate information. specially when the mempool is practically empty and fees are low again.
just use your Electrum wallet, that fee suggestion has been on point so far for me.
or see https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/ in the middle of the page it has fee suggestion.

Do you think the blockcypher.com can give a accurate estimate fee? well i check the site and saw that the 3rd one is the lowest which is    0.00076 BTC/KB
Do you think if we set the fee on electrum you will pay for exact amount of 0.00076 every transaction if you set it or it will determine the transaction size first?

this is an estiamted fee, it will never be accurate. but blockcypher gives a closer number than bitcoinfees.21.co and if you are using Electrum, you don't need this tools (you can use them to double check though) because Electrum gives a pretty good suggestion.

and please pay attention that these numbers are fee per byte or fee per kb not fee per transaction.

[fanita]

I have not used Multibit HD so I do not know how comfortable or not.