[ANNOUNCE] Electrum - Lightweight Bitcoin Client

[mmortal03]

Why is the new electrum enforce a minimum fee of 0.00001BTC? Even when setting the fee settings to zero. So why is that? Previous versions allowed to send zero fee transactions and those transaction went through with the same speed practically.

When a fee isnt sufficient then the nodes will say something, resulting in an error message from electrum. So this should be enough. Why the not changeable minimumfee now?

If this is the case, it's also problem for me, because I specifically started using Electrum with my Trezor to be able to make no-fee transactions when the coins are sufficiently old.

Has anyone answered peligro regarding any minimum fee in Electrum 2.3.2?

[1714229365]

1714229365

[1714229365]

1714229365

[1714229365]

1714229365

[1714229365]

1714229365

[TheButterZone]

Electrum OSX 2.3.2 allows you to type the full amount you want to send in the Send tab's BTC Amount box, type 0 in the fee box, and broadcast the TX after the password prompt - if your TX qualifies for zero-fee. I have the "Set transaction fees manually" and "Show transaction before broadcast" settings enabled. The TX I just broadcast was of an almost 2-month old input >0.01 BTC and equal output, and apparently it qualified for zero-fee.

And the TX confirmed 2 blocks later.

[peligro]

Electrum OSX 2.3.2 allows you to type the full amount you want to send in the Send tab's BTC Amount box, type 0 in the fee box, and broadcast the TX after the password prompt - if your TX qualifies for zero-fee. I have the "Set transaction fees manually" and "Show transaction before broadcast" settings enabled. The TX I just broadcast was of an almost 2-month old input >0.01 BTC and equal output, and apparently it qualified for zero-fee.

And the TX confirmed 2 blocks later.

Hey, you're right. I always tried to chance the fee before and changed the amount then. Didn't work because the value jumped back to 0.00001BTC then.

So the solution is to enter the full amount, the amount get red, then put the fee value to 0 and you can send without a fee as long as the network will accept it.

Thanks!

[SebastianJu]

What can i do when i sent a transaction on the 11th and only added the minimum fee? I did not know that these ... persons are spamming the blockchain again, so i didnt care about adding a higher fee. Now the transaction does not get confirmed.

In electrum the transaction vanished, so i tried sending again with a higher fee. Problem is, that transaction shows up in electrum but not in block explorers. So i guess it does not get propagated.

How to solve?

Thanks!

[ThomasV]

What can i do when i sent a transaction on the 11th and only added the minimum fee? I did not know that these ... persons are spamming the blockchain again, so i didnt care about adding a higher fee. Now the transaction does not get confirmed.

In electrum the transaction vanished, so i tried sending again with a higher fee. Problem is, that transaction shows up in electrum but not in block explorers. So i guess it does not get propagated.

How to solve?

Thanks!

switch to a different server.
I recently reboted bitcoind on ecdsa.net, in order to flush its memory pool.

[SebastianJu]

Thanks, it worked. Used 0.00021 Bitcoin as fee.

It might be useful when electrum shows the amount of unconfirmed transactions and warns when they are too many. Then the fee could be adjusted.

Additionally, if possible, electrum might check the last block and see the minimum fee needed to get implemented.

[SebastianJu]

*sigh* The feature that electrum is overwriting the fee all the time is no fun. I wanted to pay someone for an item and entered the fee 0.0002, went back to the value and changed the value a bit and sended... electrum thought it has to change my fee so that i have a transaction stuck now. Its only small but still annoying. I would like when electrum would stop this, it didnt do this in previous versions too.

So how long until i can resend my coins?

[marcus_of_augustus]

*sigh* The feature that electrum is overwriting the fee all the time is no fun. I wanted to pay someone for an item and entered the fee 0.0002, went back to the value and changed the value a bit and sended... electrum thought it has to change my fee so that i have a transaction stuck now. Its only small but still annoying. I would like when electrum would stop this, it didnt do this in previous versions too.

So how long until i can resend my coins?

This highlights perhaps area where electrum servers could standardise on mempool handling so that electrum clients can determine better fee estimation and TX handling for 'stuck' TX. Electrum client-server model is uniquely positioned to have very slick fee handling with the ability to coordinate policies, that regular SPV and node infrastructure cannot (without sub-optimal 'trusted' node pairing, etc).

E.g. I see some good proposals from jgarzik for dropping from the mempool TX that are older than 288 blocks (2 days), using a mempool janitor. And along same lines floating minrelaytxfee dust treatment based around a highwater/lowwater limits on mempool size.

[SebastianJu]

*sigh* The feature that electrum is overwriting the fee all the time is no fun. I wanted to pay someone for an item and entered the fee 0.0002, went back to the value and changed the value a bit and sended... electrum thought it has to change my fee so that i have a transaction stuck now. Its only small but still annoying. I would like when electrum would stop this, it didnt do this in previous versions too.

So how long until i can resend my coins?

This highlights perhaps area where electrum servers could standardise on mempool handling so that electrum clients can determine better fee estimation and TX handling for 'stuck' TX. Electrum client-server model is uniquely positioned to have very slick fee handling with the ability to coordinate policies, that regular SPV and node infrastructure cannot (without sub-optimal 'trusted' node pairing, etc).

E.g. I see some good proposals from jgarzik for dropping from the mempool TX that are older than 288 blocks (2 days), using a mempool janitor. And along same lines floating minrelaytxfee dust treatment based around a highwater/lowwater limits on mempool size.

Maybe i didnt sleep enough but when i read your first paragraph the first time i did not understand anything. On second read you try to help electrum clients to guess better on the needed fees.

It seems after around 12 hours i cant yet get the unconfirmed transaction forgotten so that i can resend with a higher fee.

[zebedee]

*sigh* The feature that electrum is overwriting the fee all the time is no fun.

I fixed this; I think it got into the 2.3 release, but it's certainly fixed in HEAD.

[SebastianJu]

*sigh* The feature that electrum is overwriting the fee all the time is no fun.

I fixed this; I think it got into the 2.3 release, but it's certainly fixed in HEAD.

Do you want to say i should use my head? When you edited the fee and edit the value then, then you dont await that you have to look at the fee again.

When i misunderstood then thanks for fixing.

[SebastianJu]

Why is 2FA implemented that way? I will never use this kind of 2FA. Why should i pay this high fee for every transaction? That makes no sense. And my coins would be held on a multisig address and a key is held by a website? Really? When they go down then i lose my coins. What setup is that? Oo They even might wait until they can extort all users. Pay me a ransom or i dont release your coins.

2FA could be implemented the normal way. And i would like when it disables the access to the whole wallet, not only needed for actions in it.

Though that electrum should be encrypted totally, no reason anyone can see all addresses and transactions, is something i asked for a week or so ago already.

I would like to enable 2FA but the current setup is unacceptable. I want to avoid risks, not implementing even higher ones.

[BadAss.Sx]

Is 2FA implemented?

[SebastianJu]

Is 2FA implemented?

Yes, as a plugin. But only through a service. And without that service you will never every be able to reach your coins. I think that alone is inacceptable. Plus you have to pay a relatively high fee for each transaction on top, only because the privilege to use 2FA that way.

I cant see why 2FA wasnt implemented properly. Instead its a security loss.

[SebastianJu]

Is 2FA implemented?

Yes, as a plugin. But only through a service. And without that service you will never every be able to reach your coins. I think that alone is inacceptable. Plus you have to pay a relatively high fee for each transaction on top, only because the privilege to use 2FA that way.

I cant see why 2FA wasnt implemented properly. Instead its a security loss.

Maybe you should read the instructions first: https://electrum.orain.org/wiki/Two-factor_authentication

Even if TrustedCoin is compromised or taken offline, your coins are secure as long as you still have the seed of your wallet

If you don't like the service, don't use it.

Secure... but unspendable. Or how should one access coins on a multisignature address when one party cant give their key for releasing them? What is secure with that? Its like losing your wallet password and brainwallet too.

Yes, i wont use it because its more risky than not using 2FA. But i would like a normal 2FA implemented. Something without third parties involved. And for sure something where you dont need to have to pay for every transaction again.

[favdesu]

Is 2FA implemented?

Yes, as a plugin. But only through a service. And without that service you will never every be able to reach your coins. I think that alone is inacceptable. Plus you have to pay a relatively high fee for each transaction on top, only because the privilege to use 2FA that way.

I cant see why 2FA wasnt implemented properly. Instead its a security loss.

Maybe you should read the instructions first: https://electrum.orain.org/wiki/Two-factor_authentication

Even if TrustedCoin is compromised or taken offline, your coins are secure as long as you still have the seed of your wallet

If you don't like the service, don't use it.

Secure... but unspendable. Or how should one access coins on a multisignature address when one party cant give their key for releasing them? What is secure with that? Its like losing your wallet password and brainwallet too.

Yes, i wont use it because its more risky than not using 2FA. But i would like a normal 2FA implemented. Something without third parties involved. And for sure something where you dont need to have to pay for every transaction again.

2FA is not needed for a local wallet. make sure to backup the seed / pw to keepass and keep that secure. that's all what's needed to use electrum

[ThomasV]

Secure... but unspendable. Or how should one access coins on a multisignature address when one party cant give their key for releasing them? What is secure with that? Its like losing your wallet password and brainwallet too.

Please stop spreading FUD! Bitcoins stored in a 2FA wallet can be fully recovered from the seed, and spent.

How do we achieve this?
Here is the trick: The public key of the cosigner service is not needed, because it is derived deterministically from the seed.

You can test it by yourself, it works.

[SebastianJu]

Secure... but unspendable. Or how should one access coins on a multisignature address when one party cant give their key for releasing them? What is secure with that? Its like losing your wallet password and brainwallet too.

Please stop spreading FUD! Bitcoins stored in a 2FA wallet can be fully recovered from the seed, and spent.

How do we achieve this?
Here is the trick: The public key of the cosigner service is not needed, because it is derived deterministically from the seed.

You can test it by yourself, it works.

Ok, thats something important to know. So when the service dies, but you still have your brainwallet, you will be able to recover your funds? I mean without the service could you create the multisig addresses again at all? I would not know what to do just in the case.

Is it your service? If not, why didnt you implement 2FA normally? Not being able to log into the account or send transactions without 2FA should have been sufficient i guess. Why not going that route? The service costs money for each transaction on top. Because of that i doubt many will use it.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Secure... but unspendable. Or how should one access coins on a multisignature address when one party cant give their key for releasing them? What is secure with that? Its like losing your wallet password and brainwallet too.

Please stop spreading FUD! Bitcoins stored in a 2FA wallet can be fully recovered from the seed, and spent.

How do we achieve this?
Here is the trick: The public key of the cosigner service is not needed, because it is derived deterministically from the seed.

You can test it by yourself, it works.

Ok, thats something important to know. So when the service dies, but you still have your brainwallet, you will be able to recover your funds?

It is not brainwallet, it is hierarchical deterministic seed.

I mean without the service could you create the multisig addresses again at all? I would not know what to do just in the case.

Yes.

Is it your service? If not, why didnt you implement 2FA normally? Not being able to log into the account or send transactions without 2FA should have been sufficient i guess. Why not going that route? The service costs money for each transaction on top. Because of that i doubt many will use it.

Which service are you talking about? Please clarify.

[ThomasV]

Ok, thats something important to know. So when the service dies, but you still have your brainwallet, you will be able to recover your funds? I mean without the service could you create the multisig addresses again at all? I would not know what to do just in the case.

Again: YES. How many times will I need to repeat that?
Yes, you can recover your wallet from its seed, at any time, even if the service dies. It is fully deterministic.

Competing services may not have that feature, but Electrum does have it.
I would certainly not propose that service in Electrum if it was not the case.

Is it your service?

The service is operated by TrustedCoin.
The fees paid by users are shared between Electrum Technologies and TrustedCoin.
The service was developed by both companies.

If not, why didnt you implement 2FA normally? Not being able to log into the account or send transactions without 2FA should have been sufficient i guess. Why not going that route? The service costs money for each transaction on top. Because of that i doubt many will use it.

what the F*** do you mean by 'normally'? If you mean 'without a remote server', then you can create a multisig wallet with Electrum, and sign transactions with two devices; it will not cost you anything. It even works with android.

OTOH, if you want the convenience of someone else hosting and securing a cosigning key for you, then someone has to pay for the server operation, and for the people developing the service. I do not want to run that kind of service on VC money (like BitGo does), because I want Electrum to remain independent, and because it does not work in the long run (what do you do once you run out of VC money?)