Bread Wallet now Coinbase Wallet - Help Needed

[Pmalek]

Also, I am going to buy a hardware wallet. Any suggestions as to what to get?

That's a tough decision considering everything that has happened with hardware wallets in recent years.

I have been using a Ledger Nano S for several years and it suits me just fine. However, it's slowly getting phased out and it won't be produced anymore. That can also mean that it won't be supported any longer in a few years from now. Ledger has also experienced a serious privacy leak in which personal data from their clients has been hacked and made available publicly. User funds, private keys, and seeds are safe though. The newer editions of their Nano X has become a nightmare for many users due to issues with battery, charging, etc. Not recommended to get one of those. They have released a pimped up version of the Nano S called Nano S Plus. But it's too soon to comment on the quality on that one.

The second biggest player on the hardware wallet market is Trezor. They have also recently had a leak of customer data and their devices suffer from an unfixable vulnerability that could allow someone to extract the seed and PIN with relatively cheap hardware and within 5-10 minutes. Assuming the person knows what he is doing. That's what it's recommended and essential to use a strong passphrase when you store your coins on a Trezor.

Ledger is closed-source, Trezor is open-source.
Ledger has a secure element preventing seed extraction, Trezor doesn't, which makes it vulnerable to such attacks.

There are many other brands, but I don't know much about them. dkbit98 has made two good threads that you can use as a reference. Check out Open Source Hardware Wallets and AirGapped Hardware Wallets.

It's recommended to purchase these devices from the manufacturers or official resellers only. Not from random people on the Internet or some unknown online shops. Paying with crypto and having the devices shipped to PO boxes would be good to minimize the risk of having your data hacked and leaked. Everything that is stored on a server somewhere is a disaster waiting to happen and hardware wallet manufacturers have to store your data to comply with local laws and regulations. 

[1714929865]

1714929865

[1714929865]

1714929865

[1714929865]

1714929865

[nc50lc]

Since it's bc1, you can try to restore another wallet by selecting "native segwit (p2wpkh)" then edit the derivation path below into m/0'

Thanks, nc50lc. Your suggestion worked.

Great but I didn't expected that to work since p2wpkh @ m/0' was already checked when you've used "Detect Existing Accounts".
I guess you only have bitcoins in a "change address" of your BRD wallet's Segwit address, because it wasn't checked by that button.

Anyways, congrats.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I guess you only have bitcoins in a "change address" of your BRD wallet's Segwit address, because it wasn't checked by that button.

I'd never considered that before when suggesting that people should use the "Detect existing accounts" button. I went to check the code, and you are absolutely right: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/586d3a4361f5dbb9ce9ffdfdfeb276664b5bbfaa/electrum/bip39_recovery.py#L18-L62
As you can see from lines 47 and 51, it checks the first 20 receiving addresses, but does not check any change addresses.

I'm sure there are other wallets, which like BRD, send change from one account to the change address in another account, which could result in the same situation here of "Detect existing accounts" missing an active account. Worth raising an issue on GitHub?

[DaveF]

I guess you only have bitcoins in a "change address" of your BRD wallet's Segwit address, because it wasn't checked by that button.

I'd never considered that before when suggesting that people should use the "Detect existing accounts" button. I went to check the code, and you are absolutely right: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/586d3a4361f5dbb9ce9ffdfdfeb276664b5bbfaa/electrum/bip39_recovery.py#L18-L62
As you can see from lines 47 and 51, it checks the first 20 receiving addresses, but does not check any change addresses.

I'm sure there are other wallets, which like BRD, send change from one account to the change address in another account, which could result in the same situation here of "Detect existing accounts" missing an active account. Worth raising an issue on GitHub?

Yes, definitely worth it. It's things like this that drive people nuts trying to deal with BTC wallets.
Then they wind up here looking for help, and unless someone read this thread, remembers this thread, reads that post with the issue they never get help.
If it's on github, it's at least there for a lot of people to see and discuss.

-Dave

[o_e_l_e_o]

Yes, definitely worth it. It's things like this that drive people nuts trying to deal with BTC wallets.

Done - https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/7804

The change to the code to implement this would be trivial, and as I said in the GitHub issue, I see no real downside to not do this. The code already scans for 280 addresses across 14 different derivation paths. Adding in say another 70 addresses (first 5 change addresses) for example creates minimal additional local computation time or load on queried servers.

Surprisingly this is the first time in ~4.5 years I've needed to post to GitHub about something directly related to my forum account. My main GitHub account has posted on a whole bunch of non-bitcoin stuff I'd rather not link to this account, so a new account it is.

Edit: Well, that didn't take long. SomberNight has already made the necessary changes: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/commit/9e0a0af81a7dab4fe22aeb007fb5560f48dc6433. From the next version of Electrum, it will also scan the first 10 receiving addresses.

[Morpheus Eberhardt]

That's a tough decision considering everything that has happened with hardware wallets in recent years. …

Thanks, Pmalek. The information you provided regarding the hardware wallets are very helpful. I am going to go through the references in your post and make a pick.