Fork November: Ledger wallet in "Legacy" or "Segwit" to get free coins?

[aleksej996]

15 ) This now empty wallet, is the one that you should move to the btc1 client or whatever other fork to access your coins

And when you sent your coins in step 14 someone just took that transaction, along with all the others, and replayed it on the other network, just because he can. Now that wallet is empty on both blockchains. You see, it is not that "simple" when there is no replay protection.

[1715190116]

1715190116

[1715190116]

1715190116

[1715190116]

1715190116

[1715190116]

1715190116

[1715190116]

1715190116

[1715190116]

1715190116

[The Enoeht]

All care to know is, will this fork nonsense stop in the future or are we going to have this shit every quarter?!

[barabut]

If I am not wrong both segwit and legacy wallets have the same blockchain system

[European Central Bank]

wait for ledger themselves to say something. there's no point in listening to anyone else's opinion on this. if there is something that works then they'll implement it.

and as far as i know not one single exchange, wallet provider or any other service has come out with a concrete plan about how they're going to accommodate this. it's not looking like a straightforward hark fork with replay protection at present.

[bob123]

Wow, this sounds waaaay to complicated for me to risk.

I think I'm just gonna keep my coins in legacy, and not touch the "2x"-coins until that team decides to implement replay protection.
I hope exchanges will reject their coin until they make it safe.

Or maybe Ledger will design a ready made application to safely split/send the 2x coins while keeping your BTC wallet untouched.

A workaround already has been Posted
After the fork you have to Send your coins from your unspend Outputs (on both chains) to newly generated addresses (also on both chains).
This way an attacker can't replay the Transaction from one Chain to another.

[Kogs]

I found some confusing answers here and also some not 100% correct answers.

For the upcoming Segwit2X fork (if they will not add replay protection in the last minute before forking) here are some points to mention.

• Have your Bitcoins on addresses where you control the private key. If they are on a legacy address or on a Segwit address does not matter
• You will have to split the coins on your own in any case if you don't want to lose the coins for one side
• Some people here say, that for a replay of a transaction on the other side "someone else" need to take the transaction and broadcast it on the other side.
  This is not true.
  With the upcoming fork, the legacy chain and the Segwit2x chain broadcast their transactions to the same network. So, whenever you send a transaction (does not matter on which side), the transaction will always find a way to the nodes of the other chain (they are in the same network, they share the same transaction pool and so on). This causes always a replay of any transaction sent to the network.
• The only save way to split the coins I know is with a time locked transaction.
  The idea here is, that after a split both chains will have a different hash rate. So it is very unlikely that they find new blocks with the same speed. The chain with more hash rate will find blocks faster than the one with less hash rate.
  
  Let's assume the chain splits at block height 1000 (I know the current block height is higher, but just as example).
  This means, that from block 1000 on, the blocks will look different.
  Lets say with hash rate of Chain A they will find blocks every 20 minutes, Chain B find blocks every 40 minutes. After 6 hours Chain A created 18 blocks (block height 1018) and Chain B created 9 blocks (block height 1009).
  
  Now comes the magic part.
  You create a transaction with the bitcoins you want to split and send them to a new address you created before (important, you need to send to an address you control the private key!!). The transaction should have the nLocktime Parameter set to the block height of the longer chain. In this example, set the nLocktime to 1018. This means, that this transaction is only allowed to add to a new block if the block height of the chain is equal or higher than 1018.
  Chain A has height 1018, so if you payed enough transaction fee, the transaction should be put into one of the next blocks.
  Chain B has height 1009, so this transaction with the locktime 1018 will not be mined into the next blocks. It will wait in the transaction pool until Chain B reaches height 1018.
  When this transaction got one confirmation on Chain A, you create a second transaction to a different address you created (also your own address), but this time without time lock.
  The second transaction will be picked up by Chain B and put into one of the next blocks. This makes the first unconfirmed transaction invalid on Chain B. The second transaction itself is invalid on Chain A, because the Bitcoins were already used in the first transaction.
  If everything was working fine, you should have your coins on a new address on Chain A and another new address on Chain B.
  
• There is a chance, that this coin split might not work the first time.
  For example, if your first transaction did not get confirmed, before the second chain reach the nLockTime block height. In this case, you just wait again, until the two chains have a different height (maybe 10 to 20 blocks difference), and try again (that's the reason why you should always do this split and send the coins to your own addresses, so you can repeat in case it did not work the first time).

I hope that it is understandable what I wrote there  

One challenge is to create this nLocktime transaction, as I don't know any "easy" way to create them. Wallets usually don't support to create them directly...

Don't know if Ledger wallet is able to do it?

[spinnycat]

Ok wow, I am confused too all. In regards to the previous split did any software wallet or online wallet handle it more gracefully as in a quicker resolution? I am thinking with the legacy and segwit options on Ledger it might be better if I store elsewhere during the hard fork.
Considering my balance is small also, so less risk than someone that has alot.

[okala]

I've been in crypto not for long; in the beginning of september i bought some BTC, and put it on a Ledger.

My ledger asked me to choose between a segwit or legacy account, and i chose Segwit because word is that it's faster en has lower fees.
So now my balance shows up whenever i open my wallet as "Segwit", but when i choose "Legacy" the balance says 0 BTC.

With the upcoming fork in november, people are saying BTC holders get free coins of the newly created fork.

And I am wondering if it matters if the BTC wallet on the Ledger is in Legacy or Segwit mode to get these free new coins?
Because if it does,  i should transfer my BTC.

If searched the net like crazy, but nowhere i can find the answer to this...  

It do not even matter were your bitcoin is at the time of the hardfork but you should know that even if your coins is in the online or offline or even exchangers site you will still get a free coins of the new coins after the splitting. This has happened during the last hardfork and I believe that the same thing will happen again.

[Spendulus]

Wow, this sounds waaaay to complicated for me to risk.

I think I'm just gonna keep my coins in legacy, and not touch the "2x"-coins until that team decides to implement replay protection.
I hope exchanges will reject their coin until they make it safe.

Or maybe Ledger will design a ready made application to safely split/send the 2x coins while keeping your BTC wallet untouched.

There's a much simpler way to look at it.

You've got a girlfriend who has an identical twin sister. Both your girlfriend and her sister have secrets and motivations you are only dimly aware of. They have a habit of sharing each other's clothes.

You need to be very, very careful.



For Trezor a few weeks ago they advised everyone move from a legacy to a "New Style (Segwit)" account in order to get the benefits of the new style, such as faster transactions and lower fees. I read that as true but not accommodating all the possible variations of split forks.

Thus for Trezor it seems reasonable all coins should be on legacy, non segwit accounts.

[TheFlynn49]

There's a much simpler way to look at it.
You've got a girlfriend who has an identical twin sister. Both your girlfriend and her sister have secrets and motivations you are only dimly aware of. They have a habit of sharing each other's clothes.
You need to be very, very careful.

I like this image.

If you play this well, you'll get a pretty high reward !

[Colorblind]

I've been in crypto not for long; in the beginning of september i bought some BTC, and put it on a Ledger.

My ledger asked me to choose between a segwit or legacy account, and i chose Segwit because word is that it's faster en has lower fees.
So now my balance shows up whenever i open my wallet as "Segwit", but when i choose "Legacy" the balance says 0 BTC.

With the upcoming fork in november, people are saying BTC holders get free coins of the newly created fork.

And I am wondering if it matters if the BTC wallet on the Ledger is in Legacy or Segwit mode to get these free new coins?
Because if it does,  i should transfer my BTC.

If searched the net like crazy, but nowhere i can find the answer to this...  

You don't have any "account" in BitCoin. All you have is your private key and transactions that says "This money can be spent by someone who is in possession of this private key (i.e. can produce signature)." So instead of thinking that you have some money, you should shift your understanding to thinking "there are money that I can spend if I have a key". And by spending you should mean "I hand right to spend this money to someone else who owns his key". Your money isn't on your PC or on anybody's pc - they are scattered all over blockchain and stays there. It does not matter what software you use to broadcast transaction - your money will remain there.

After had fork nothing will change with existing blockchain - it will remain identical. Another, identical blockchain with slightly different rules of transactions will be created. It will have exactly same history and identical spendable funds in it that you (using your private key) can spend. The only difference is if you spend your funds in one chain it will remain unspent in another (at least if some sort of replay protection will be implemented).

This is essentially what fork is from user perspective.

[Colorblind]

I've been in crypto not for long; in the beginning of september i bought some BTC, and put it on a Ledger.

My ledger asked me to choose between a segwit or legacy account, and i chose Segwit because word is that it's faster en has lower fees.
So now my balance shows up whenever i open my wallet as "Segwit", but when i choose "Legacy" the balance says 0 BTC.

With the upcoming fork in november, people are saying BTC holders get free coins of the newly created fork.

And I am wondering if it matters if the BTC wallet on the Ledger is in Legacy or Segwit mode to get these free new coins?
Because if it does,  i should transfer my BTC.

If searched the net like crazy, but nowhere i can find the answer to this...  

It do not even matter were your bitcoin is at the time of the hardfork but you should know that even if your coins is in the online or offline or even exchangers site you will still get a free coins of the new coins after the splitting. This has happened during the last hardfork and I believe that the same thing will happen again.

However if your funds are held by online service it is up to that service to release your funds. Some services will say (we don't support this fork, therefore you will only get bitcoins). To avoid this sort of frustration transfer it to  some wallet you can access with your private key.

[katinko]

I've been in crypto not for long; in the beginning of september i bought some BTC, and put it on a Ledger.

My ledger asked me to choose between a segwit or legacy account, and i chose Segwit because word is that it's faster en has lower fees.
So now my balance shows up whenever i open my wallet as "Segwit", but when i choose "Legacy" the balance says 0 BTC.

With the upcoming fork in november, people are saying BTC holders get free coins of the newly created fork.

And I am wondering if it matters if the BTC wallet on the Ledger is in Legacy or Segwit mode to get these free new coins?
Because if it does,  i should transfer my BTC.

If searched the net like crazy, but nowhere i can find the answer to this...  

If i'm not mistaking, it shouldn't matter... Both legacy and segwit wallets use the same underlying blockchain (segwit was a soft fork). So, in case of a new hardfork, it shouldn't matter if you used a segwit or a legacy wallet, all transactions for both wallets were recorded on the same blockchain, and after the fork those transactions should be visible in the forked coin's wallet... Unless i'm missing something here.

Oh i see do you mean all the transaction was recorded in blockchain or in the other form of chain? I think this novermber fork for segwit is can help to make transaction much smoothly and lessen the delays of transaction also it will lessen the transaction fees in every chain wallet.

[rkagerer]

• Some people here say, that for a replay of a transaction on the other side "someone else" need to take the transaction and broadcast it on the other side.
  This is not true.
  With the upcoming fork, the legacy chain and the Segwit2x chain broadcast their transactions to the same network. So, whenever you send a transaction (does not matter on which side), the transaction will always find a way to the nodes of the other chain (they are in the same network, they share the same transaction pool and so on). This causes always a replay of any transaction sent to the network.
• The only save way to split the coins I know is with a time locked transaction.
  The idea here is, that after a split both chains will have a different hash rate. So it is very unlikely that they find new blocks with the same speed. The chain with more hash rate will find blocks faster than the one with less hash rate.
  
  Let's assume the chain splits at block height 1000 (I know the current block height is higher, but just as example).
  This means, that from block 1000 on, the blocks will look different.
  Lets say with hash rate of Chain A they will find blocks every 20 minutes, Chain B find blocks every 40 minutes. After 6 hours Chain A created 18 blocks (block height 1018) and Chain B created 9 blocks (block height 1009).
  
  Now comes the magic part.
  You create a transaction with the bitcoins you want to split and send them to a new address you created before (important, you need to send to an address you control the private key!!). The transaction should have the nLocktime Parameter set to the block height of the longer chain. In this example, set the nLocktime to 1018. This means, that this transaction is only allowed to add to a new block if the block height of the chain is equal or higher than 1018.
  Chain A has height 1018, so if you payed enough transaction fee, the transaction should be put into one of the next blocks.
  Chain B has height 1009, so this transaction with the locktime 1018 will not be mined into the next blocks. It will wait in the transaction pool until Chain B reaches height 1018.
  When this transaction got one confirmation on Chain A, you create a second transaction to a different address you created (also your own address), but this time without time lock.
  The second transaction will be picked up by Chain B and put into one of the next blocks. This makes the first unconfirmed transaction invalid on Chain B. The second transaction itself is invalid on Chain A, because the Bitcoins were already used in the first transaction.
  If everything was working fine, you should have your coins on a new address on Chain A and another new address on Chain B.
  
• There is a chance, that this coin split might not work the first time.
  For example, if your first transaction did not get confirmed, before the second chain reach the nLockTime block height. In this case, you just wait again, until the two chains have a different height (maybe 10 to 20 blocks difference), and try again (that's the reason why you should always do this split and send the coins to your own addresses, so you can repeat in case it did not work the first time).

I hope that it is understandable what I wrote there  

One challenge is to create this nLocktime transaction, as I don't know any "easy" way to create them. Wallets usually don't support to create them directly...

Kogs, I see what you're getting at, but is it really necessary to timelock the transaction?  Assuming you're sending the coins to an address only you have the private key for, then the worst case if a replay occurs is that your coins get moved to an address you control and you could just start over, right?  Could you not just send the transaction, then once it arrives at its destination in one chain, safely send the same coins to a different address using the client for the other chain?  It's a race, and whoever wins will just ignore the second attempt as a double-spend.

Let me know if I missed something here.

ps. Sorry to revive an old post but I wanted to reference the original message.