Unable to locate package libsecp256k1-0

[adaseb]

So I am in the process of upgrading my Electrum version. Basically on Ubuntu 16.04 wouldn't work since it requires a higher version of Python3 that is not available on 16.04. So I downloaded the Ubuntu 20.x.xx version and not getting the python error but I am getting issues with libsecp256k1-0.

sudo apt-get install libsecp256k1-0

Results in

E: Unable to locate package libsecp256k1-0

Yes I googled and can't find much info out there. Seems to be related to Lightning network which I am not planning on using. So if I can't locate this libsecp256k package, I can install an older version which doesn't require it however which version is that? Electrum versions older than 4.0 ?

[1714120832]

1714120832

[1714120832]

1714120832

[1714120832]

1714120832

[khaled0111]

This error is usually due to outdated or empty packages list on your system.
Since you installed a new version of Ubuntu then this might be the problem.
Before installing the libsecp256k1-0 package, try running this command to update your packages list:

Code:

sudo apt-get update

[adaseb]

This error is usually due to outdated or empty packages list on your system.
Since you installed a new version of Ubuntu then this might be the problem.
Before installing the libsecp256k1-0 package, try running this command to update your packages list:

Code:

sudo apt-get update

Yeah I also assumed it was that but it doesn't work even after that command.

The only thing I can think of is that maybe there is some typo that ThomasV posted on electrum.org and that's why its not working.

Can somebody confirm if

libsecp256k1-0

is the actual package name? Does the '-0' need to be there ?

[nc50lc]

-snip-
Yes I googled and can't find much info out there. Seems to be related to Lightning network which I am not planning on using. So if I can't locate this libsecp256k package, I can install an older version which doesn't require it however which version is that? Electrum versions older than 4.0 ?

It's a mandatory requirement since version 4.0.1, it has something to do with the wallet's ECDSA operation.

Have you tried the alternative option?: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum#:~:text=Alternatively%2C%20when%20running,contrib/make_libsecp256k1.sh
You can make the .dll file yourself using the bundled "make_libsecp256k1.sh" file in "contrib" folder.

[ABCbits]

Can somebody confirm if

libsecp256k1-0

is the actual package name? Does the '-0' need to be there ?

The package name might be different on different Linux distro, but at it's the exact package name for Debian (https://packages.debian.org/sid/libsecp256k1-0).

If you're looking for quick solution, you could try download .deb file from https://pkgs.org/ and install it with this command

Code:

sudo apt install ./PACKAGE_NAME.deb

[khaled0111]

The package name is correct.
It could be that your package manager is disabling downloads from the universe repository.
As you can see here, libsecp256k1-0 is on the universe repository so you have to enable it.
To do this use this command:

Code:

sudo add-apt-repository universe

then run the update command again and try to install the package and see if it works.

[Abdussamad]

use the app image version of electrum. it's designed to work on older systems like yours.

[DireWolfM14]

This error is usually due to outdated or empty packages list on your system.
Since you installed a new version of Ubuntu then this might be the problem.
Before installing the libsecp256k1-0 package, try running this command to update your packages list:

Code:

sudo apt-get update

Yeah I also assumed it was that but it doesn't work even after that command.

The only thing I can think of is that maybe there is some typo that ThomasV posted on electrum.org and that's why its not working.

Can somebody confirm if

libsecp256k1-0

is the actual package name? Does the '-0' need to be there ?

Update is only half way there, you'll also need to upgrade:

Code:

sudo apt update
sudo apt list --upgradable -a
sudo apt upgrade -y

When you list the upgradable packages, you should see the libsecp256k1-0 listed among them.

It's also one of the dependencies listed on the Electrum Downloads page:

Install dependencies:   sudo apt-get install python3-pyqt5 libsecp256k1-0 python3-cryptography

If you're running Ubuntu 20.xx.xx you should have it installed after the upgrade, anyway, so you probably won't have to install it manually.

use the app image version of electrum. it's designed to work on older systems like yours.

Agreed, this is likely the easiest way of running the most recent version of Electrum.

[adaseb]

Thank you all that replied. I will just use the AppImage because it seems it'll be the one with less issues to encounter. I got a question regarding verifying the download.

Besides
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/tree/master/pubkeys

Is there any other public place where I can download ThomasV and SomberNight Public keys to verify the files? When I did this last a few years ago, I went to some pgp.mit.edu website to get ThomasV key however that doesn't seem to work.

I just want another source where I can verify just in case the github is compromised.

[Abdussamad]

you can compare the key fingerprints with the one in this youtube video:

https://youtu.be/7D83IpdiF-U?t=2

the full key fingerprint cannot be faked so it doesn't matter where you get the public key from as long as it has the right fingerprint.

[DireWolfM14]

Thank you all that replied. I will just use the AppImage because it seems it'll be the one with less issues to encounter. I got a question regarding verifying the download.

Besides
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/tree/master/pubkeys

Is there any other public place where I can download ThomasV and SomberNight Public keys to verify the files? When I did this last a few years ago, I went to some pgp.mit.edu website to get ThomasV key however that doesn't seem to work.

I just want another source where I can verify just in case the github is compromised.

I prefer to use the gpg tool to receive keys.  I've found the Ubuntu server to be one of the more reliable, and it's one of the more commonly used.  The OpenPGP server also tends to be pretty reliable.  The two servers are among the many that are supposed to synchronize with one another, but they can be slow to do so.

Code:

gpg --keyserver hkp://keyserver.ubuntu.com --receive-keys 6694D8DE7BE8EE5631BED9502BD5824B7F9470E6

Or

Code:

gpg --keyserver hkp://keys.openpgp.org --receive-keys 6694D8DE7BE8EE5631BED9502BD5824B7F9470E6

[adaseb]

Yes the Appimage was pretty simple to get running. Just double clicked it and it opened right up. Got a quick question with Electrum 4.x

When I click an address I want to spend from, even if I am sending a very low amount, it combines all the unsent inputs (UTXO) even including some spamming dust transactions I've gotten, I don't want to spend those. Is there anyway to manually pick which UTXO you want to spend from like in Electrum 3.x ?

[nc50lc]

-snip- Is there anyway to manually pick which UTXO you want to spend from like in Electrum 3.x ?

It's still available in 4.x versions.
Just enable the 'Coins' tab (View->Show Coins), open it, then multi-click (holding CTRL or SHIFT) the coins you want to spend, right-click then select "Spend".
The only difference with 3.x is you'll have to manually go to 'Send' tab and there'll be a green highlighted message below saying "Coin control active: .....".

Alternatively, right click on the coin that you don't want to spend and select, "Freeze Coin" so it will be excluded from the coin selection.

[HCP]

I would highly recommend you go with the "freeze" option if there are UTXOs that you know you'll never want to spend... this will prevent them from being accidentally used in any future transactions.

Note that it isn't "permanent", you can always "unfreeze" a frozen UTXO.

[adaseb]

Yes it seems to work now.

Got another question.

When I make an unsigned transaction, go to Export, -> Show as QR code. Then I take that QR code, decode it, and use an Electrum base 43 converter to convert it into hex like on,

https://github.com/jacoblyles/base43js

The unsigned transaction I get doesn't load on the offline Electrum Or even be able to decode it on

https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/decodetx/

What I did with Electrum 2.x-3.x was I displayed the QR code on the online computer, took a photo with a digital camera and put in that QR photo into my offline computer, decoded the QR code, then that base 43 I converted into hex, and was able to Load the transaction as a text and was able to sign it.

However the unsigned raw transaction seems to be much longer compared to how I did it with the older electrum versions. Wondering how I can get it to load on my offline computer by taking a digital photo and then putting that SD card into that computer and reading it somehow. I don't have a USB cam laying around to use on my offline computer.

[nc50lc]

That's because of the new method of Electrum for exporting transactions that follows Bitcoin Core's format.
It's now using "PSBT" (Partially Signed Bitcoin Transaction), thus the QR Code for the unsigned txn as well.

In Cold Storage setup, your offline Electrum should be at least version 4.0.1 to be able to recognize PSBT.

What I did with Electrum 2.x-3.x was I displayed the QR code on the online computer, took a photo with a digital camera and put in that QR photo into my offline computer, decoded the QR code, then that base 43 I converted into hex, and was able to Load the transaction as a text and was able to sign it.

It's much simpler if you just directly export the PSBT (text) and put in in your offline computer for signing.
You can export it using the "Advanced Preview", after clicking "Finalize", use "Export->Copy to Clipboard".

[adaseb]

Ok so everything seems to work however I am confused in one area.


With the older versions I would make an unsigned transaction, then display a QR code, then I would take that QR code, decode it, convert to hex, and I could load that unsigned raw transaction into a block explorer and it would decode it for me with the inputs, outputs, fees, timelock, etc. Now I can't do that. I can use the export feature and copy to clipboard however a single 1 input 2 output transaction is extremely large. Basically I need to split the text into 2-3 parts, take 2-3 photos, and group them together back into the offline computer.

Here is the strange part, after I load the unsigned transaction, I sign it offline, then I see a QR code, I can take that QR code, decode it, convert to hex, and I can load that signed raw transaction into a block explorer and it shows me all the inputs, outputs, fee, etc so I can double check before I broadcast it.

So it seems the unsigned raw transaction is buggy but the signed raw transaction isn't. I hope you can understand what I am trying to say because its difficult to describe without showing.

[nc50lc]

Here is the strange part, after I load the unsigned transaction, I sign it offline, then I see a QR code, I can take that QR code, decode it, convert to hex, and I can load that signed raw transaction into a block explorer and it shows me all the inputs, outputs, fee, etc so I can double check before I broadcast it.

So it seems the unsigned raw transaction is buggy but the signed raw transaction isn't. I hope you can understand what I am trying to say because its difficult to describe without showing.

That's expected.
The unsigned RAW transaction is "PSBT", not a "Raw Transaction" as I explained above,
you can read BIP-174 for more info: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0174.mediawiki#specification
It can't be decoded by blockexplorers because it's not an actual bitcoin transaction, just a "Partially Signed Bitcoin Transaction" which is different than a raw txn (check link above).

But after it's fully signed, Electrum will construct a valid signed raw transaction that can be broadcast to the network.
It's now in the proper format so blockexplorers or other transaction decoders can now decode it.

[adaseb]

Here is the strange part, after I load the unsigned transaction, I sign it offline, then I see a QR code, I can take that QR code, decode it, convert to hex, and I can load that signed raw transaction into a block explorer and it shows me all the inputs, outputs, fee, etc so I can double check before I broadcast it.

So it seems the unsigned raw transaction is buggy but the signed raw transaction isn't. I hope you can understand what I am trying to say because its difficult to describe without showing.

That's expected.
The unsigned RAW transaction is "PSBT", not a "Raw Transaction" as I explained above,
you can read BIP-174 for more info: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0174.mediawiki#specification
It can't be decoded by blockexplorers because it's not an actual bitcoin transaction, just a "Partially Signed Bitcoin Transaction" which is different than a raw txn (check link above).

But after it's fully signed, Electrum will construct a valid signed raw transaction that can be broadcast to the network.
It's now in the proper format so blockexplorers or other transaction decoders can now decode it.

Ok, make sense.

Thanks alot everybody for all your help.