Electrum Legacy address

[Peanutswar]

On the recent version of the electrum I know there's an option to the users for having a legacy and a segwit wallet now upon checking again because I want to create a two wallet which is I want to create a legacy there's no option at all at this time I would like to ask what and when happen they remove the legacy option on electrum?

The process now becomes Create new wallet > Standard wallet > Seed phrase > Password and automatically created an address which all segwit.

[Charles-Tim]

Segwit is the default since version 4.1.0 and up.

You can use segwit to reduce the fee in a transaction, segwit reduces 42% to about 52% of fee in a transaction if compared with legacy depending on the transaction inputs and outputs but most especially inputs. Because of this, for people not to waste unnecessary fee on legacy transactions, segwit is made default. I think this is a cool and best idea, nobody should use legacy wallet again in my opinion.

But please, is there any good reason you want to create legacy wallet?

[FinneysTrueVision]

The only reason I can think of for somebody wanting to use a legacy address would be for message signing. There is no benefit to using this type of address. If you want an address that is compatible with services that don't support bech32 withdrawals you can just use a wrapped Segwit address.

[Husna QA]

On the recent version of the electrum I know there's an option to the users for having a legacy and a segwit wallet now upon checking again because I want to create a two wallet which is I want to create a legacy there's no option at all at this time I would like to ask what and when happen they remove the legacy option on electrum?

The process now becomes Create new wallet > Standard wallet > Seed phrase > Password and automatically created an address which all segwit.

Elimination of the seed type selection option and by default the resulting wallet is Segwit wallet (Bech32 address) starting from Electrum 4.1.0. For details can be seen in the release note.

# Release 4.1.0 - Kangaroo (March 30, 2021)
-snip-
 * 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-

To create a Legacy address, open the Console Tab (View Menu -> Show Console). Type the following command line:

make_seed(128,"","standard")

https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/electrum/commands.py#L320-L325

For example:

Then create a new wallet using the seed generated through the Console. Here is an example of the results:

[Charles-Tim]

The only reason I can think of for somebody wanting to use a legacy address would be for message signing. There is no benefit to using this type of address.

Message signing is the complain some people do make, but it is not just a genuine excuse because I signed my first message using segwit (bc1q) address when I was a newbie.

[Peanutswar]

But please, is there any good reason you want to create legacy wallet?

When I was starting on the forum I used the segwit bc1 and I want to try the difference between the legacy address that's why I come up I want to have legacy too.

~~~

Thanks for the information It works is there any difference between the seed given by the electrum on create seed and the console as given on the image above?.

[pooya87]

Thanks for the information It works is there any difference between the seed given by the electrum on create seed and the console as given on the image above?.

When you create a new wallet through the UI you are calling that function (make_seed) under the hood with values you select in the interface. Using the console you can manually call that function and set the parameters that you like and are not available through the UI such as selecting a different entropy size or a different address type.
It goes without saying that you shouldn't use console in general if you don't understand what you are doing.

[HCP]

Thanks for the information It works is there any difference between the seed given by the electrum on create seed and the console as given on the image above?.

Effectively no... they are, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same... as long as you use "128" and "standard" parameters when calling make_seed()

If you use different values, then it will generate seeds with different amounts of entropy or different features, ie. 2fa etc.

[FinneysTrueVision]

The only reason I can think of for somebody wanting to use a legacy address would be for message signing. There is no benefit to using this type of address.

Message signing is the complain some people do make, but it is not just a genuine excuse because I signed my first message using segwit (bc1q) address when I was a newbie.

There isn't an official standard when it comes to signing messages with segwit addresses. If you did sign a message it might not be recognized as valid when you try to verify it with a different wallet or program.

[pooya87]

The only reason I can think of for somebody wanting to use a legacy address would be for message signing. There is no benefit to using this type of address.

Message signing is the complain some people do make, but it is not just a genuine excuse because I signed my first message using segwit (bc1q) address when I was a newbie.

There isn't an official standard when it comes to signing messages with segwit addresses. If you did sign a message it might not be recognized as valid when you try to verify it with a different wallet or program.

Technically there is no "standard" in bitcoin world apart from the consensus rules. Even addresses aren't standards because they are not part of the consensus rules! But there are already 2 BIPs (which in some ways could be called "standard") for signing messages from an address: BIP-137 and 322.

[Husna QA]

Thanks for the information It works is there any difference between the seed given by the electrum on create seed and the console as given on the image above?.

There is no difference. Even as pooya87 explained above, you can set different parameters manually via the console which is not found when creating a wallet through the UI.




Reference:
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/de716ab07cf81c96658713026b03a3d3f1940c19/electrum/mnemonic.py#L190
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/de716ab07cf81c96658713026b03a3d3f1940c19/electrum/commands.py#L325
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/6650e6bbae12a79e12667857ee039f1b1f30c7e3/electrum/mnemonic.py#L249
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/6650e6bbae12a79e12667857ee039f1b1f30c7e3/electrum/version.py#L13-L21

[hugeblack]

# Release 4.1.0 - Kangaroo (March 30, 2021)
-snip-
 * 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-

To create a Legacy address, open the Console Tab (View Menu -> Show Console). Type the following command line:

It was a long time ago that I did not create legacy wallet but it looks like this a soft force to use segwit wallets > Opening and writing some console commands are complicated for newbies.
It seems that it is also working with make_seed(120,"legancy")

[ranochigo]

The only reason I can think of for somebody wanting to use a legacy address would be for message signing. There is no benefit to using this type of address. If you want an address that is compatible with services that don't support bech32 withdrawals you can just use a wrapped Segwit address.

There really isn't any reason.

Unfortunately, Electrum never supported nested Segwit addresses. A workaround would be to generate a BIP39 seed and import it into Electrum. That introduces too many points of failure and I generally recommend against it. If you want compatibility and also Segwit benefits (to a smaller extent), then you should use another wallet instead of using the workaround.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

The only reason I can think of for somebody wanting to use a legacy address would be for message signing. There is no benefit to using this type of address.

Message signing is the complain some people do make, but it is not just a genuine excuse because I signed my first message using segwit (bc1q) address when I was a newbie.

Is it harder for some reason to sign a message using a segwit address than a legacy one?  I just signed a message yesterday from a native segwit address, and it didn't seem to be any more difficult--though it's been quite some time since I've had to sign something, and last time might have been from a segwit addy as well.

Oddly enough, the bitcoin faucets that still exist (or at least some of them) only let you withdraw to legacy addresses, Cointiply being one of them, and that was true of Coinpot before they quit the faucet business.  And if you buy something like a Ballet wallet or an OpenDime, the address they provide you with is a legacy one.  Not sure why that is, but I think it's high time everyone moved to segwit.

I still recall when segwit was first introduced and all the heated discussion about it.  It was wild.

[BlackHatCoiner]

By and large you still can do it via GUI. Launch client ==> check "Standard wallet" ==> Click Next ==> check "I have already a seed" == > Click Next == > Click Options == >  check "Bip39  seed" = > Click OK == > Enter your BIP 39 SEED ==>Click Next  ==> check "legacy (p2pkh)" (you may also change the last index in derivation path if u know what you are doing) ==> Click Next

He doesn't have to do that. Electrum allows you to create a legacy wallet without having to import any BIP39 seeds.

The only reason I can think of for somebody wanting to use a legacy address would be for message signing.

Why that? What difference would it make to sign from a segwit address? I have this query along with the Pharmacist.

Oddly enough, the bitcoin faucets that still exist (or at least some of them) only let you withdraw to legacy addresses, Cointiply being one of them, and that was true of Coinpot before they quit the faucet business.

Especially faucets are the ones that should use SegWit to reduce the fee of those large transactions. When I used to visit faucets, I remember they had a minimum amount for withdrawal. It was around 1000 sats IIRC. With SegWit, you could theoretically earn slightly more.

[DireWolfM14]

Is it harder for some reason to sign a message using a segwit address than a legacy one?  I just signed a message yesterday from a native segwit address, and it didn't seem to be any more difficult--though it's been quite some time since I've had to sign something, and last time might have been from a segwit addy as well.

It's not any more difficult to sign a message with a segwit address, but it can be difficult to verify the signature.  There is no standard for segwit signatures, so software clients that allow you sign a message with a segwit address have implemented their own.  It's been my experience that a message signed in Electrum with a segwit address can only be verified by Electrum.

Bitcoin core allows messages to be signed only with a legacy address, or at least that's how V0.21.0 worked.  I haven't tried to sign a message with a segwit address using V0.21.1, but there's nothing in the change log that suggest this has been changed.  

[HCP]

Correct... Bitcoin Core has only ever supported signing messages from Legacy addresses.

Verifying signed messages that have used SegWit address (nested or native) can be problematic. I've seen issues where messages signed using a Nested SegWit address by the Trezor wallet software could only be verified in Trezor wallet. While messages signed in Mycelium or Electrum could generally be verified in both.

Even the modified BrainwalletX verification tool that supposedly supports P2SH-P2WPKH (Nested SegWit) addresses (https://jhoenicke.github.io/brainwallet.github.io/#verify) struggles with signed messages from some sources

One of the advantages of Bitcoin Core I guess... it will generate legacy, nested or native segwit... all from the same seed/wallet... and you can do so "at will", by simply specifying the type you want when using getnewaddress

[pooya87]

It's not any more difficult to sign a message with a segwit address, but it can be difficult to verify the signature.  There is no standard for segwit signatures, so software clients that allow you sign a message with a segwit address have implemented their own.  It's been my experience that a message signed in Electrum with a segwit address can only be verified by Electrum.

Bitcoin core allows messages to be signed only with a legacy address, or at least that's how V0.21.0 worked.  I haven't tried to sign a message with a segwit address using V0.21.1, but there's nothing in the change log that suggest this has been changed. 

Just because bitcoin core doesn't have a certain feature it does NOT mean there is no standard for that feature. For example core doesn't support any form of mnemonic including BIP39 but that does NOT mean there is no standard for mnemonics!
It is the same with signing messages, I've already posted 2 "standards" for it above but since bitcoin core doesn't implement those people think there is no "standard". Believe it or not majority of developers are copy pasters who would only implement stuff if core did, since core doesn't have it they didn't have a code to "copy".

[ranochigo]

It's not any more difficult to sign a message with a segwit address, but it can be difficult to verify the signature.  There is no standard for segwit signatures, so software clients that allow you sign a message with a segwit address have implemented their own.  It's been my experience that a message signed in Electrum with a segwit address can only be verified by Electrum.

Bitcoin core allows messages to be signed only with a legacy address, or at least that's how V0.21.0 worked.  I haven't tried to sign a message with a segwit address using V0.21.1, but there's nothing in the change log that suggest this has been changed.  

Actually, you can sign a message using the private key.

Use signmessagewithprivkey and Bitcoin Core will directly sign a message with the private key provided and thus would be a workaround for the problem. The signature validates with Electrum as well as the way it uses the signed message is the same. Note that this is only a workaround and it doesn't mean that Bitcoin Core will validate any signatures from segwit addresses, nested or bc1.

[DireWolfM14]

Just because bitcoin core doesn't have a certain feature it does NOT mean there is no standard for that feature. For example core doesn't support any form of mnemonic including BIP39 but that does NOT mean there is no standard for mnemonics!

Great point and excellent example.

I've already posted 2 "standards" for it above but since bitcoin core doesn't implement those people think there is no "standard".

I wasn't aware there were already BIPs covering segwit message signatures.  I suppose it would have been more accurate to say "there isn't a specific, established standard."  The fact that two BIPs exist might be the reason for delayed implementation.  I suspect you're right about most developers wanting to just copy and paste code from Core, that would make sense.  I can also understand the hesitancy to implement one, only to have Bitcoin Core implement the other at some later time, effectively making that the "standard."