Is it safe to make direct payment from my Hardware Wallet

[Anarc Senior]

I got ripped off from using Green Wallet.  I put some money into green wallet and use it for making purchasing.  I never got a change to setup a mnemonics password.  Forgot my regular password, Greenwallet deleted my password after three trials, now I couldn't access to my bitcoin...

I had used Breadwallet for a long time, but their fee was outrageous ($17 fees for $15 transactions)

Long story short:  I've been avoiding making payment derectly from my  Nano Ledger Hardware Wallet for security and avoiding losing all my bitcoins...

1). Giving the fact that I lost my bitcoin (being stuck in GreenWallet with no Mnemonic password).  High fees on breadwallet, I now contemplate in making payment directly from my HW wallet - is it a good pratice ?

2). What about using the Bitcoin core node wallet ?  I've been running a bitcoin core node, but I haven't gotten time to learn blockchain basic programming.  I could create a wallet on my bitcoin blockchain node.  But I read some where, that it's not good practice to run my bitcoins wallet on bitcoin node for security reason, until I become sufficient in blockchain programming...

Any one has any advice ? Thank you in advance for your input.

[1715067813]

1715067813

[1715067813]

1715067813

[ranochigo]

I got ripped off from using Green Wallet.

I've had a similar experience. As always, good concept, poor execution.

1). Giving the fact that I lost my bitcoin (being stuck in GreenWallet with no Mnemonic password).  High fees on breadwallet, I now contemplate in making payment directly from my HW wallet - is it a good pratice ?

As in using your HW wallet to pay for things online? Then yes.

HW wallets are designed to isolate the private key from the computer and effectively shutting that out as an attack vector. A transaction from your HW wallet is no different from another transaction initiated from any other wallets. You might want to take some precautions; always double check the sending address and amount.

2). What about using the Bitcoin core node wallet ?  I've been running a bitcoin core node, but I haven't gotten time to learn blockchain basic programming.  I could create a wallet on my bitcoin blockchain node.  But I read some where, that it's not good practice to run my bitcoins wallet on bitcoin node for security reason, until I become sufficient in blockchain programming...

Programming your own wallet is just a huge waste of time. There are enough wallets out there for you to use. Programming your own wallet just increases the chances of you messing up.

Whoever you're getting your sources from, they're wrong. You really can't mess up using Bitcoin Core interface. Unless you go around messing with the raw transactions, private keys etc.

[Xynerise]

I had used Breadwallet for a long time, but their fee was outrageous ($17 fees for $15 transactions)

Fees do not depend on the wallet you're using or the amount you're sending but on your transaction size (inputs).
If the $15 you want to send are made up of ~$1 inputs then obviously the fees would be large as the number of inputs required are much.

1). Giving the fact that I lost my bitcoin (being stuck in GreenWallet with no Mnemonic password).  High fees on breadwallet, I now contemplate in making payment directly from my HW wallet - is it a good pratice ?

Not a bad practice.
Hardware wallets are supposed to be a gap between paper wallets for security and hot wallets for convenience, so you can use them to make payments.
As long as you verify the address you're sending to on your ledger device.

2). What about using the Bitcoin core node wallet ?  I've been running a bitcoin core node, but I haven't gotten time to learn blockchain basic programming.  I could create a wallet on my bitcoin blockchain node.  But I read some where, that it's not good practice to run my bitcoins wallet on bitcoin node for security reason, until I become sufficient in blockchain programming...

Any one has any advice ? Thank you in advance for your input.

You don't need to program anything to use Core as a wallet.
Bitcoin Core by default is a full node AND a wallet.
The security advice against using Core as a wallet is that:
1.) You're not running core on a local machine but a VPS so you shouldn't use that instance as a wallet.
2) If you're running Windows.
Windows is terribly insecure so you need to take precautions not to be infected by malware that will steal your bitcoins.

[LoyceV]

Fees do not depend on the wallet you're using or the amount you're sending but on your transaction size (inputs).

Not all wallets allow you to set custom fees, and some wallets still use a default setting that's much higher than needed.

[bob123]

~snip~
The security advice against using Core as a wallet is that:
2) If you're running Windows.
Windows is terribly insecure so you need to take precautions not to be infected by malware that will steal your bitcoins.

There is no real 'security advice' against using core.
Core is just as secured (regarding malware) as any other desktop wallet.

Additionally its not like if you switch to linux you don't need any security precautions anymore.
The majority of malware is written for windows, yes. But linux is by far not 'secured enough' to be called safe.

[leowonderful]

It's fine to use your Ledger for regular transactions due to security reasons mentioned above, but I (and many other people) agree that it's always good to have a hot wallet with funds you plan on using for convenience. I occasionally send funds from my SegWit Ledger to my Blockchain wallet for use online, and it works just fine for regular use. I've had this setup for three years now (though I only got the Ledger Nano a year ago, I previously used an airgapped computer for cold storage), and I haven't been hacked or compromised yet.

As a reminder, fees are extremely low right now. It wouldn't be a bad idea to combine low/dust inputs and consolidate them right now for lower fees in the long run, and perhaps start a SegWit address if you haven't already to reduce fees in the long run in the future if things change.

[Anarc Senior]

It's fine to use your Ledger for regular transactions due to security reasons mentioned above, but I (and many other people) agree that it's always good to have a hot wallet with funds you plan on using for convenience. I occasionally send funds from my SegWit Ledger to my Blockchain wallet for use online, and it works just fine for regular use. I've had this setup for three years now (though I only got the Ledger Nano a year ago, I previously used an airgapped computer for cold storage), and I haven't been hacked or compromised yet.

As a reminder, fees are extremely low right now. It wouldn't be a bad idea to combine low/dust inputs and consolidate them right now for lower fees in the long run, and perhaps start a SegWit address if you haven't already to reduce fees in the long run in the future if things change.

Thank you everyone for your inputs and good advices.  I found my Mnemonic pass phrase so I'm ok now...Green Wallet works quite well and the fee is pretty cheap ( I paid 6 cents for a $120 transaction - not bad - this is why we value bitcoin in the first place).  Here's my reply to some other comments:

1). The $17 fee of a $12 transaction was not a large file - breadwallet was not Segwit compatible during the "high fee" period therefore they charge more (plus extra profits).

2)  My bitcoin core full node is on a Mac computer - so I'm pretty secure here.  One question:  I've been running the full node 24/7 just to be a good bitcoin citizen for a while - but I'm not doing much to it and gain nothing from it.  I've seen some " invalid transaction and connections errors" from the debug windows.  Since I'm not too familiar with bitcoin programming (I need to do some more reading for this), I've switched off the connection for now until I gain some more programming knowledge and  understand what to do with the core full node.

3). Yes I have already converted all my coins to Segwit address by just simply store my coins in Nano Ledger HW wallet.

Thanks,

[HCP]

1). The $17 fee of a $12 transaction was not a large file - breadwallet was not Segwit compatible during the "high fee" period therefore they charge more (plus extra profits).

Breadwallet get precisely ZERO profit from any fees you pay for a BTC transaction... in fact, NO wallet gets any "profit" from any fees paid. (NOTE: I am excluding Exchanges that charge outrageous "withdraw" fees).

You need to understand that wallets don't "charge" fees... you are including a "fee" on your transaction to incentivise miners to include your transaction in a block... ALL fee's go to the miners, the wallets get nothing... and assuming your wallet is halfway decent, it should allow you to set custom transaction fees, so you can set whatever you like... just don't expect miners to include the transaction if you set a ridiculously low fee when average fees are super high. Currently, not so much of an issue given that the mempool is empty and transactions with 1 sat/byte fees are getting confirmed.

2)  My bitcoin core full node is on a Mac computer - so I'm pretty secure here. 

It'st thinking like that that leads to risky behaviour. Do not think you've safe because you use <insert OS here>... ALL OSes are vulnerable... anyone that thinks different is kidding themselves.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mac+osx+virus

One question:  I've been running the full node 24/7 just to be a good bitcoin citizen for a while - but I'm not doing much to it and gain nothing from it.  I've seen some " invalid transaction and connections errors" from the debug windows. 

Quite possibly connections and/or transactions from Bitcoin Cash Nodes that utilise the same ports etc... or someone is attempting to propagate a transaction that your Node is refusing to relay (ie. zero fee or some other non-standard transaction)... it's perfectly normal and you don't really need to worry about it.

3). Yes I have already converted all my coins to Segwit address by just simply store my coins in Nano Ledger HW wallet.

Unless you specifically chose "Bitcoin -> SegWit"... and got a "3" type address from your Ledger HW wallet... it won't be a SegWit address.

[Kakmakr]

It depends on what function your hard wallet gives you. I do not use my hard wallet for long-term cold storage, but rather regular use. I store more than 80% of my coins on paper wallets for long-term storage, so that strategy allows me to use my hard wallet for daily use.

Just split your strategy for storing coins between different methods. You do not want to have all your eggs in one basket, when thieves or governments comes knocking at your door. ^smile^

Update your firmware on your Ledger and watch out for the Man-in-the-middle attack. <verify the address on the device>

[Anarc Senior]

1). The $17 fee of a $12 transaction was not a large file - breadwallet was not Segwit compatible during the "high fee" period therefore they charge more (plus extra profits).

Breadwallet get precisely ZERO profit from any fees you pay for a BTC transaction... in fact, NO wallet gets any "profit" from any fees paid. (NOTE: I am excluding Exchanges that charge outrageous "withdraw" fees).

You need to understand that wallets don't "charge" fees... you are including a "fee" on your transaction to incentivise miners to include your transaction in a block... ALL fee's go to the miners, the wallets get nothing... and assuming your wallet is halfway decent, it should allow you to set custom transaction fees, so you can set whatever you like... just don't expect miners to include the transaction if you set a ridiculously low fee when average fees are super high. Currently, not so much of an issue given that the mempool is empty and transactions with 1 sat/byte fees are getting confirmed.

2)  My bitcoin core full node is on a Mac computer - so I'm pretty secure here. 

It'st thinking like that that leads to risky behaviour. Do not think you've safe because you use <insert OS here>... ALL OSes are vulnerable... anyone that thinks different is kidding themselves.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mac+osx+virus

One question:  I've been running the full node 24/7 just to be a good bitcoin citizen for a while - but I'm not doing much to it and gain nothing from it.  I've seen some " invalid transaction and connections errors" from the debug windows. 

Quite possibly connections and/or transactions from Bitcoin Cash Nodes that utilise the same ports etc... or someone is attempting to propagate a transaction that your Node is refusing to relay (ie. zero fee or some other non-standard transaction)... it's perfectly normal and you don't really need to worry about it.

3). Yes I have already converted all my coins to Segwit address by just simply store my coins in Nano Ledger HW wallet.

Unless you specifically chose "Bitcoin -> SegWit"... and got a "3" type address from your Ledger HW wallet... it won't be a SegWit address.

[Anarc Senior]

1). The $17 fee of a $12 transaction was not a large file - breadwallet was not Segwit compatible during the "high fee" period therefore they charge more (plus extra profits).

Breadwallet get precisely ZERO profit from any fees you pay for a BTC transaction... in fact, NO wallet gets any "profit" from any fees paid. (NOTE: I am excluding Exchanges that charge outrageous "withdraw" fees).

You need to understand that wallets don't "charge" fees... you are including a "fee" on your transaction to incentivise miners to include your transaction in a block... ALL fee's go to the miners, the wallets get nothing... and assuming your wallet is halfway decent, it should allow you to set custom transaction fees, so you can set whatever you like... just don't expect miners to include the transaction if you set a ridiculously low fee when average fees are super high. Currently, not so much of an issue given that the mempool is empty and transactions with 1 sat/byte fees are getting confirmed.

2)  My bitcoin core full node is on a Mac computer - so I'm pretty secure here. 

It'st thinking like that that leads to risky behaviour. Do not think you've safe because you use <insert OS here>... ALL OSes are vulnerable... anyone that thinks different is kidding themselves.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mac+osx+virus

One question:  I've been running the full node 24/7 just to be a good bitcoin citizen for a while - but I'm not doing much to it and gain nothing from it.  I've seen some " invalid transaction and connections errors" from the debug windows. 

Quite possibly connections and/or transactions from Bitcoin Cash Nodes that utilise the same ports etc... or someone is attempting to propagate a transaction that your Node is refusing to relay (ie. zero fee or some other non-standard transaction)... it's perfectly normal and you don't really need to worry about it.

3). Yes I have already converted all my coins to Segwit address by just simply store my coins in Nano Ledger HW wallet.

Unless you specifically chose "Bitcoin -> SegWit"... and got a "3" type address from your Ledger HW wallet... it won't be a SegWit address.

Your response sounds a bit condescending- but I bet you are a decent person...I'm not a complete noob as you think...I have a graduate level in engineering and work as an automation/ robotic engineer in the Silicon Valley. 

But thank you for your feed back:
You mentioned Bcash, which just really make me feeling sick in the stomach...I hope they go away very soon...

Regarding Sewig address on my Nano Ledger, there are only two real type of addresses:  bitcoin legacy and Sewig.  I would not consider Bcash as a real bitcoin - there's nothing that Bcash does that bitcoin couldn't do better in the matter of times...

[bob123]

Regarding Sewig address on my Nano Ledger, there are only two real type of addresses:  bitcoin legacy and Sewig. 

Actually there are more types of 'addresses' than legacy and segwit.
P2PKH (starting with 1..), P2SH (starting with 3.. (multisignature)), P2WSH nested in P2SH (nested segwit, starting with 3..) and bech32 ('native' segwit; startin with bc1..).
The nano s supports P2SH/P2WSH. Thats definetely better than P2PKH addresses but not as efficient as bech32.

I would not consider Bcash as a real bitcoin - there's nothing that Bcash does that bitcoin couldn't do better in the matter of times...

Bcash has nothing to do with BTC. Its just a fork. And to be exactly, a pretty bad one.
IMO bcash already is doomed to fail. 8mb blocks are not (and never will be) an answer to the scaling 'issue'.

[Anarc Senior]

]Bcash has nothing to do with BTC. Its just a fork. And to be exactly, a pretty bad one.
IMO bcash already is doomed to fail. 8mb blocks are not (and never will be) an answer to the scaling 'issue'.

I couldn't agree more !  Aside from the usefulness of the technology, I also judge the character of the people behind the projects.  There are two type of geniuses in the world:  The ones, whose invent good things for humanity - and the others invent ideas to take from others and gain for themselves.  I think Roger Ver belong to the second category - like Donald Trump, these kinds are very good at manipulate others for their own personal gain...some may call them bullies.  Unfortunately,  many followers of bullies are mistaken between tough and strong character vs mean and bullying personality.

[TechPriest]

The nano s supports P2SH/P2WSH. Thats definetely better than P2PKH addresses but not as efficient as bech32.

What do you mean "better"? I think it's hard to say what "better" if we are talking about types of transaction (in fact, just insctruction how to spend outputs). I don't think that Segwit P2WSH is better than P2PKH. It's just another type with it's own pros and cons.

The same like we can't say what is better: P2PKH or P2SH. It's just different types for different (not much) purposes.

[bob123]

What do you mean "better"? I think it's hard to say what "better" if we are talking about types of transaction (in fact, just insctruction how to spend outputs). I don't think that Segwit P2WSH is better than P2PKH.

With 'better' i was refering to the total amount of fees OP has to pay while using the same amount of UTXO's as input (compared to P2PKH).
Additionally segwit (bech32 and nested P2SH) are capable of being supported by the lightning network. Segwit is a requirement for a second layer solution at the current state.
So IMO it is 'better'. Nore sure about the cons regarding segwit. Feel free to explain.

[TechPriest]

With 'better' i was refering to the total amount of fees OP has to pay while using the same amount of UTXO's as input (compared to P2PKH).
Additionally segwit (bech32 and nested P2SH) are capable of being supported by the lightning network. Segwit is a requirement for a second layer solution at the current state.

As i said beforem it depends on your purposes. But about fee i must agree with you.

So IMO it is 'better'. Nore sure about the cons regarding segwit. Feel free to explain.

I'm not so good at Segwit understanding now, so i can't discuss its cons.  But i very doubt that it has not any cons. So let us wait and see. I don't belong to segwit fanatics or haters, just looking with interest.

[Thirdspace]

Regarding Sewig address on my Nano Ledger, there are only two real type of addresses:  bitcoin legacy and Sewig.  

Actually there are more types of 'addresses' than legacy and segwit.
P2PKH (starting with 1..), P2SH (starting with 3.. (multisignature)), P2WSH nested in P2SH (nested segwit, starting with 3..) and bech32 ('native' segwit; startin with bc1..).
The nano s supports P2SH/P2WSH. Thats definetely better than P2PKH addresses but not as efficient as bech32.

based on criteria of segregated witness (segwit) adoption, we can separate them to two types: legacy and segwit
P2SH is considered as legacy address and P2SH-wrapped segwit as segwit address
P2SH-wrapped segwit is backwards compatible with the legacy P2SH address format
while native segwit (bech32) is non-backwards compatible format

[bob123]

Regarding Sewig address on my Nano Ledger, there are only two real type of addresses:  bitcoin legacy and Sewig.  

Actually there are more types of 'addresses' than legacy and segwit.
P2PKH (starting with 1..), P2SH (starting with 3.. (multisignature)), P2WSH nested in P2SH (nested segwit, starting with 3..) and bech32 ('native' segwit; startin with bc1..).
The nano s supports P2SH/P2WSH. Thats definetely better than P2PKH addresses but not as efficient as bech32.

based on criteria of segregated witness (segwit) adoption, we can separate them to two types: legacy and segwit
P2SH is considered as legacy address and P2SH-wrapped segwit as segwit address
P2SH-wrapped segwit is backwards compatible with the legacy P2SH address format
while native segwit (bech32) is non-backwards compatible format

While it is true what you are saying, i have to partly disagree.

Anarc Senior was refering to the ledger nano s' types to choose from an address format: P2PKH (called 'legacy' by ledger) or nested P2SH (called 'segwit' by ledger).
While it is not wrong to call them legacy and segwit, the types of addresses are P2PKH and P2SH.

Additionally you can't tell for sure whether a P2SH address is 1) multisignature or 2) nested segwit until the UTXO's are spend and the redeem script is revealed.