Risk of double spending if...

[chrissy9999]

Hi!

Is there a risk of me double spending or losing my BTCs in any way if I move my BTCs from my current ledger nano s and sending them to a new ledger nano with a completely new private key/ mnemonic passphrase, then using my old mnemonic passphrase from the ledger before to extract some BTC forks? Even if the forks do not have any replay protection etc, will my BTCs on the new ledger be in risk of being double spend? Do I put my BTC in jepordy in any way in my new ledger doing this?


Also anyone used this fork extraction tool? Looks legit, they have a bitcointalk forum thread with good reviews so far...
https://dig.walleting.services/#/


Appreciate everyones time, thank you!

[1713432171]

1713432171

[1713432171]

1713432171

[pooya87]

i think you are confusing a couple of things with each other.
the "risk" of "double spend" is a risk that the receiver worries about until the transaction is confirmed not the sender because a double spend means as long as the transaction is not confirmed the sender can send the same funds to a different address so the receiver should always wait for at least 1 confirmation.

the replay attack that you mentioned is another thing, it has nothing to do with double spending. it simply means when you spend the coins on one chain (if there were no protection) the same transaction can be broadcast and mined on another chain. the solution is simple, move your bitcoins first to a new address from a new wallet and wait for it to confirm then go to the forked chain and spend the new_coins there to another address (like sending the new fork coin to exchange).

[bitperson]

Is there a risk of me double spending or losing my BTCs in any way if I move my BTCs from my current ledger nano s and sending them to a new ledger nano with a completely new private key/ mnemonic passphrase, then using my old mnemonic passphrase from the ledger before to extract some BTC forks? Even if the forks do not have any replay protection etc, will my BTCs on the new ledger be in risk of being double spend?

What you describe is called ‘swiping’ and is considered safe. When your transaction to your new wallet has a reasonable number of confirmations (often six is considered enough), there should be no way to respend them from the old address.

[chrissy9999]

i think you are confusing a couple of things with each other.
the "risk" of "double spend" is a risk that the receiver worries about until the transaction is confirmed not the sender because a double spend means as long as the transaction is not confirmed the sender can send the same funds to a different address so the receiver should always wait for at least 1 confirmation.

the replay attack that you mentioned is another thing, it has nothing to do with double spending. it simply means when you spend the coins on one chain (if there were no protection) the same transaction can be broadcast and mined on another chain. the solution is simple, move your bitcoins first to a new address from a new wallet and wait for it to confirm then go to the forked chain and spend the new_coins there to another address (like sending the new fork coin to exchange).

Thank all for the answers. And thanks for the correction, I thought they were the same thing. In that case I guess replay attack was the thing I was concerned with, and was afraid I would for example send my BTCs + the forked shitcoin to the shitcoins adress on like an exchange and losing my BTCs even if I then would have had my BTCs on a new private key/mnemonic passphrase on a new ledger nano s. Alright so I guess it should be safe then? Moving the BTCs to a new private key then being able to freely move the shitcoins around from the old private key without worrying the BTCs would follow correct?

[pooya87]

all the bitcoin_forks that i have seen so far had replay protection so you don't have much to worry about. but it is best to always create a new wallet and send all your bitcoins to a new address from that new wallet, then start claiming the forked_coins. because the risk is not just the replay protection or lack thereof, the risk is also from trusting your private key(s) to a new wallet software that the for_coin team provided you with.

[chrissy9999]

all the bitcoin_forks that i have seen so far had replay protection so you don't have much to worry about. but it is best to always create a new wallet and send all your bitcoins to a new address from that new wallet, then start claiming the forked_coins. because the risk is not just the replay protection or lack thereof, the risk is also from trusting your private key(s) to a new wallet software that the for_coin team provided you with.

Very true! Ive already extracted the more "major/bigger" forks from the seed and sold them, so even if someone steals whats left of that private key, after I moved my BTCs from it, there wouldnt be much left anyways. But non the less, what you said still holds true. Thank you.

[laserfocused]

i think you are confusing a couple of things with each other.
the "risk" of "double spend" is a risk that the receiver worries about until the transaction is confirmed not the sender because a double spend means as long as the transaction is not confirmed the sender can send the same funds to a different address so the receiver should always wait for at least 1 confirmation.

the replay attack that you mentioned is another thing, it has nothing to do with double spending. it simply means when you spend the coins on one chain (if there were no protection) the same transaction can be broadcast and mined on another chain. the solution is simple, move your bitcoins first to a new address from a new wallet and wait for it to confirm then go to the forked chain and spend the new_coins there to another address (like sending the new fork coin to exchange).

Great explanation.  Thanks for clearing that up. It makes perfect sense

[veleten]

there is only one risk of you losing your BTC in this case-if you send your coins from Nano to another nano's BCH address
but seeing that Bitcoin Cash have changed their address format,it is less confusing now
in case of a doublespend,it is the reciever who has to worry,not you