Electrum 4.1.1 version changes to make note of

[Coin-Keeper]

This has been mentioned in various places throughout the forum but there is no 4.1.1 Electrum thread so far.  I wanted to make sure to point somethings out here for long time users of Electrum so that don't freak out when they start using this version.  A decision was made during this release to DISCONTINUE the overt option to create a legacy address wallet.  Those are addresses starting with the traditional "1".  Starting with 4.1.0 Electrum will automatically create segwit "bc1" addresses only, unless you elect to do a simple operation, which I will highlight below.  bc1/Segwit has numerous advantages so that is where you should likely stay, however since we are adults you still have options if you want to exercise them.

My opinion --------- >   AIR GAPPED -----   ******


Remember: ELECTRUM DOES NOT GENERATE BIP 39 SEED therefore you can't use this SEED in your HW if you are using one.  Electrum Dev's feel "their" version of SEED is better.  You can still use your HW SEED with Electrum quite easily!

Open Electrum and go into console (you may need to pull down view and select console so you can see it)

How to: manually create SEED type in the console on Electrum.

make_seed(seed_type="standard", nbits=256)        # Legacy 24 word SEED

make_seed(seed_type="standard", nbits=128)        # Legacy 12 word SEED

----------------

make_seed(seed_type="segwit", nbits=256)          # Segwit 24 word SEED

make_seed(seed_type="segwit", nbits=128)          # Segwit 12 word SEED

I have personally tested all four types here and they work flawlessly.  If you for some reason just WANT legacy or for some other reason you still want a 24 word SEED you can easily make one to use.  Perfectly safe and easy.  Repeating: my thought is to be AIR GAPPED, but some here may disagree.

This new version rocks in many ways!

Edit: version was changed to 4.1.0 from the original 4.1.1 typed incorrectly.

[1715137902]

1715137902

[Coin-Keeper]

I had AppImage issues with this release of Electrum.  I always GPG verify my AppImages of course so that wasn't the issue.

Strangely on Debian Buster bare metal the 4.1.1 AppImage runs great immediately (tested on 4 systems).  However for some reason the AppImage would NOT start in any of my Buster VMs.  Hmmmmm.  I used a terminal to determine the cause of the issues and received this error report.  Its a very common one if you read around on the internet:

grabbing a terminal ---- > cd Desktop

./electrum-4.1.1.AppImage

qt.qpa.plugin: Could not load the Qt platform plugin "xcb" in "" even though it was found.
This application failed to start because no Qt platform plugin could be initialized. Reinstalling the application may fix this problem.

Available platform plugins are: eglfs, linuxfb, minimal, minimalegl, offscreen, vnc, wayland-egl, wayland, wayland-xcomposite-egl, wayland-xcomposite-glx, webgl, xcb.

Aborted user@debian:~/Desktop$


There are pages to read about this issue.  I did a reinstall and a missing package was added.  Strangely again, my OS is kept updated daily.

To help others that will invariably run into this if they have certain VM's this command will fix the issues for you.

terminal command to fix missing files:

sudo apt-get --reinstall install libqt5dbus5 \
libqt5widgets5 libqt5network5 libqt5gui5 libqt5core5a \
libdouble-conversion1 libxcb-xinerama0

Once it runs simply reboot and boom you are good to go!  Hope this saves someone a few hours running this down!

[hosseinimr93]

Repeating: my thought is to go offline during this operation, but some here may disagree.

By disconnecting your internet, you don't really make your wallet more secure.
It's advisable to run electrum on an air-gapped computer. This means that you should use a computer which has always been offline and will never get online.

[Coin-Keeper]

That is actually what I meant.  I do use air gap for certain things.  All of my actual wallets are HW in tandem with Electrum.

Your point is a great clarification.  Thank you.

edit:  I went back up and changed offline to Air Gap to be more clear

[nc50lc]

Starting with 4.1.1 Electrum will automatically create segwit "bc1" addresses only, -snip-

It started in version 4.1.0, users might use this thread as a reference and type the wrong version, here's the release notes: /electrum/blob/master/RELEASE-NOTES
v4.1.1 mostly consists of bug fixes only.

[Husna QA]

Starting with 4.1.1 Electrum will automatically create segwit "bc1" addresses only, unless you elect to do a simple operation, -snip-

It started on Electrum 4.1.0; Electrum automatically creates Segwit wallets with bech32 ('bc1') addresses.

# Release 4.1.0 - Kangaroo (March 30, 2021)

This version is our second major release with support for the
Lightning Network. While our initial Lightning release was mostly
about implementing the protocol, this release brings features that are
specifically aimed at keeping Electrum lightweight and trustless,
while avoiding single points of failure. Most of the features listed
below are user-visible.
 * The wallet creation wizard no longer asks for a seed type, and
   creates segwit wallets with bech32 addresses. Older seed types can
   still be created with the command line.
-snip-

I've tried it on Electrum 4.1.0.
I've also tried to generate a legacy type wallet seed using the following format on the console:

Code:

make_seed(128,"","standard")

Note: the seeds that I appear here are just examples; Make sure the seeds are secret/not stolen by other people.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Remember: ELECTRUM DOES NOT GENERATE BIP 39 SEED therefore you can't use this SEED in your HW if you are using one.  Electrum Dev's feel "their" version of SEED is better.  You can still use your HW SEED with Electrum quite easily!

Can we just clarify what you mean here?

You can pair your hardware wallet itself (not its seed) with Electrum easily and safely, and lots of people do this. You essentially use Electrum in place of Ledger Live/Trezor Suite/whatever software your hardware wallet comes bundled with, using Electrum only as a software interface to your hardware wallet. You never enter the seed phrase your hardware wallet generated in to Electrum, and your private keys remain on your hardware wallet. You should never take the seed phrase your hardware wallet generated and enter it on Electrum.* Doing so completely negates the entire security of your hardware wallet, exposes your seed phrase to an online environment, and puts all your coins at risk.

Similarly, although you cannot import a seed phrase created by Electrum to a hardware wallet because it isn't BIP39, you shouldn't be trying to do this in the first place. Again the whole point of hardware wallet is the seed phrase is generated entirely within the device, and the private keys are stored entirely within the device. If you try to circumvent this then you weaken your security.


*The exception to this is if you are doing so on a permanently airgapped machine for the purpose of recovering your coins from a lost or damaged hardware wallet.

[dkbit98]

I don't see anything bad in fact that Electrum by default removed option to generate legacy addresses and you can still do it manually with console or use older wallet version just for this purpose.
Fees are lower with bech32 and it is compatible with all other address formats but I do expect them to add Taproot address format option when it gets activated, that it is also starting with bc1 and will make multisig much better.

[Coin-Keeper]

Thanks for all the comments guys.  I edited the OP post --- >  version to 4.1.0 from the original incorrect quote of version 4.1.1.  Love having all of us looking for accuracy and trying to keep newer users safe while they come here and learn.  Good job.

[Dabs]

There was a way to create Legacy compatible Segwit wrapped addresses, the ones that start with 3 instead of 1. Might be a little more involved, or perhaps just use an air-gapped offline iancoleman tool to create a master yprv/ypub and use that.

You would only need these for certain "legacy" websites or exchanges.

4.1.2 just release minutes ago.

[o_e_l_e_o]

There was a way to create Legacy compatible Segwit wrapped addresses, the ones that start with 3 instead of 1.

The only way to have nested segwit address in an Electrum wallet is to generate a BIP39 seed phrase somewhere else and import it to Electrum. Electrum seeds do not have a nested segwit version: https://electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/seedphrase.html#list-of-reserved-numbers

[Dabs]

There was a way to create Legacy compatible Segwit wrapped addresses, the ones that start with 3 instead of 1.

The only way to have nested segwit address in an Electrum wallet is to generate a BIP39 seed phrase somewhere else and import it to Electrum. Electrum seeds do not have a nested segwit version: https://electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/seedphrase.html#list-of-reserved-numbers

Yes, correct, I believe that was the method used. I ended up using the raw master yprv/ypub and saved that instead of the seed words. It works but you'll never see the words again after that.

You can probably do that with any master xpub/ypub/zpub if you don't care about the seed words, just a little bit more difficult to type it in unless you save the QR code for scanning.

[Coin-Keeper]

There was a way to create Legacy compatible Segwit wrapped addresses, the ones that start with 3 instead of 1.

The only way to have nested segwit address in an Electrum wallet is to generate a BIP39 seed phrase somewhere else and import it to Electrum. Electrum seeds do not have a nested segwit version: https://electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/seedphrase.html#list-of-reserved-numbers

Yes, correct, I believe that was the method used. I ended up using the raw master yprv/ypub and saved that instead of the seed words. It works but you'll never see the words again after that.

You can probably do that with any master xpub/ypub/zpub if you don't care about the seed words, just a little bit more difficult to type it in unless you save the QR code for scanning.

I am not sure why anyone would want to do that at this point.  Surely its about time that any reputable exchanges accept bc1.  If not its likely time to take your business elsewhere.  Its easy to understand how you are doing what you posted, just not why its worth the bother!  My .02

[HCP]

Has there been any progress on a "standardised" method for signing messages using bech32 addresses yet?

I haven't really been following along to the tech developments as well as I ought to be (due to "reasons"), but it is one reason why a lot of people were still clinging on to at least one or two legacy addresses due to "Airdrops" etc requiring signed message for registration etc.

Although, I dare say that it is probably not so much of a issue these days as we don't quite have the ICO overload like back in 2017

[o_e_l_e_o]

I am not sure why anyone would want to do that at this point.  Surely its about time that any reputable exchanges accept bc1.  If not its likely time to take your business elsewhere.

Completely agree. Allowing users to withdraw to a segwit address is a trivial change to their software, and is now four years overdue. If your exchange has not managed to implement such an easy change in four years, then they are almost certainly also way behind on other more serious updates pertaining to the security and safety of your coins and data. Not to mention forcing you to pay higher fees on onwards transactions.

In terms of importing a yprv rather than a seed phrase, sure it will work just fine, but I would suggest it is still better and easier to back up and import the seed phrase rather than master keys.

[Dabs]

Has there been any progress on a "standardised" method for signing messages using bech32 addresses yet?

If you consider "Electrum" as standardised enough, you can sign bech32 addressses.

[nc50lc]

Has there been any progress on a "standardised" method for signing messages using bech32 addresses yet?

If you consider "Electrum" as standardised enough, you can sign bech32 addressses.

I'm pretty sure he's aware of it  ←_←

"Standard" means that most clients do it the same way as the others.
Which in the current case, signed bc1 address from Electrum can only be verified using Electrum (or other specially-tweaked tools).
The message was signed in a Electrum-specific way.

Has there been any progress on a "standardised" method for signing messages using bech32 addresses yet?

You can follow this issue: /bitcoin/issues/10542 (Signmessage doesn't work with segwit addresses)
Latest posts are just hours ago.

[pooya87]

Has there been any progress on a "standardised" method for signing messages using bech32 addresses yet?

Apart from consensus rules there is no other "standard" in Bitcoin and everyone does what they think is best. That's why we have this many derivation paths, 3 mnemonic algorithms, ...
In any case as far as "standards" go (or better said proposals) we have 2 BIPs already: 137 and 322
But last time I checked bitcoin core didn't let you sign messages from certain address types such as the P2SH wrapped SegWit addresses, etc. which means the other lazy developers (of wallets and online tools) who can only translate code and nothing else, aren't making any efforts in doing anything about it either.