Electrum new wallets => Seed Type: Segwit

[bitmover]

I recently discovered that in newer Electrum versions you are not able to generate Legacy addresses anymore from a fresh wallet.

They somehow invented a "Seed Type: Segwit"
 
When I created a new wallet using their own seed standard (not bip39), I noticed that they didn't ask me which derivation path ( I wasn't able to choose Legacy). So I tried to import that new Seed into a new Electrum wallet. Look what I found:



This Seed has a "type: segwit"  it cannot generate, from electrum, legacy addresses.

I found this so weird.

We are seeing the obsolescence of Legacy addresses. Maybe they will be rare someday and not generated by most new software.

[hosseinimr93]

Electrum's seed phrases include a version number that determines the addresses type. Unlike BIP39 seed phrases, you can't generate different types of addresses using an electrum's seed phrase. In other words, you can't generate a legacy wallet using a seed phrase that has been generated by electrum for a segwit wallet and vise versa.

Since the version 4.1.0, electrum generates a segwit wallet by default and don't ask you the wallet type.
If you want to generate a legacy wallet on electrum, you can go to console and use the following command.

Code:

make_seed(128,"","standard")

[Charles-Tim]

When I created a new wallet using their own seed standard (not bip39), I noticed that they didn't ask me which derivation path ( I wasn't able to choose Legacy). So I tried to import that new Seed into a new Electrum wallet. Look what I found:

I was confused when I saw this, to know if Electrum has changed the  seed version system, but nothing like that. I have just generated Electrum legacy address using the console and I imported it. It worked and it generated legacy address.

If it is BIP39 seed phrase, Electrum would bring up the option to select any of the three derivation paths (legacy, nested segwit and native segwit) and choose the one that you want to use. If it is Electrum seed phrase, there won't be anything like that because the seed phrase for address types on Electrum are different as a result of version number.

Read about it here:
Electrum Seed Version System

[bitmover]

I have just generated Electrum legacy address using the console and I import it, it worked and it generated legacy address.

Since the version 4.1.0, electrum generates a segwit wallet by default and don't ask you the wallet type.
If you want to generate a legacy wallet on electrum, you can go to console and use the following command.

Code:

make_seed(128,"","standard")

using the console was the only way I found that can generate a Legacy address using Electrum seed type.

Thanks

[Husna QA]

using the console was the only way I found that can generate a Legacy address using Electrum seed type.

Since version 4.1.0, in the Electrum wallet creation wizard, the seed type selection option has been removed:

# 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-

The legacy address can still be created in the console.



Previously I also made a post about it here: Re: Electrum Legacy address

However, the seed type option still appears when creating a new Electrum wallet connected to a hardware wallet.

 

[nc50lc]

We are seeing the obsolescence of Legacy addresses. Maybe they will be rare someday and not generated by most new software.

Since there's literally no advantage of using it over SegWit, I don't see why not.

Electrum supported legacy in the GUI for quite a while because of the compatibility issue of bech32 addresses to some services, exchange and wallets.
But now that most of services/exchange support bech32, they decided to remove the ability to create it in the GUI.

For reference, here's the pull-request: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/pull/6806

[bitmover]

We are seeing the obsolescence of Legacy addresses. Maybe they will be rare someday and not generated by most new software.

Since there's literally no advantage of using it over SegWit, I don't see why not.

I would say there is one little advantage on legacy addresses.  You can easily verify a signed message from a legacy address using any Software.

AFAIK, there is no standard to verify sign message from segwit addresses,  and even bitcoin Core can't do it. Looks like electrum created it own verification and it is non Standard.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2885058.msg29647827#msg29647827

[Charles-Tim]

I would say there is one little advan on legacy addresses.  You can easily verify a signed message from a legacy address using any Software.

Never mind if I mention close source wallet along, but they are not recommendable, obviously. The first wallet I used, Coinomi (close source), I did signed a message with bitcoin address using it several times. Later, I used Electrum, it can also sign a message. Recently, I was testing Bluewallet, it signed message too.

AFAIK, there is no standard to verify sign message from segwit addresses,  and even bitcoin Core can't do it. Looks like electrum created it own verification and it is non Standard.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2885058.msg29647827#msg29647827

Only what I noticed was that a message signed with a segwit address on a wallet can be verified on other wallets that support segwit address message signing. I do not think signing a message with segwit should be a problem this time around.

[hosseinimr93]

Looks like electrum created it own verification and it is non Standard.

That's standard.
As you know, a private key can generate different types of addresses.
If you sign a message from the legacy address derived from your private key, you have actually signed the same message from the segwit address derived from the same private key as well.
Note that you sign the message with your private key, not with your address.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I would say there is one little advantage on legacy addresses.  You can easily verify a signed message from a legacy address using any Software.

It is trivial for a third party to download and install Electrum if they don't already have it in order to verify a signed message if the wallet software they are using does not support public key recovery via segwit addresses. Or alternatively, and slightly more complicated, they could convert the segwit address in to its corresponding legacy address and use that to perform public key recovery and signature verification, as I explain here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5417111.msg61126295#msg61126295

[Husna QA]

AFAIK, there is no standard to verify sign message from segwit addresses,  and even bitcoin Core can't do it.

Yes, Bitcoin Core does not support segwit address sign messages. I have asked this before. Here is achow101's answer:

There is no solution and you cannot sign a message with a segwit address. This has been the case since segwit was introduced. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10542

Looks like electrum created it own verification and it is non Standard.

Currently, the Trezor Suite provides an option to sign messages using the Trezor or Electrum format.

-snip-
If you sign a message from the legacy address derived from your private key, you have actually signed the same message from the segwit address derived from the same private key as well.
Note that you sign the message with your private key, not with your address.

There may be a little note on the Electrum private key:

Note that Electrum uses a special format for private keys in order to indicate what type of address they should be used for.

[DireWolfM14]

I would say there is one little advantage on legacy addresses.  You can easily verify a signed message from a legacy address using any Software.

Honestly, I think this is a horrible reason to choose legacy over segwit addresses.  It's also unlikely that the core dev team will implement a method for signing and encrypting messages with Taproot addresses, but that won't prevent me from using Taproot exclusively as soon as I can.  

I recommend familiarizing yourself with GnuPG for signing and encrypting messages, it's a far more practical tool for this use case.

Code:

make_seed(128,"","standard")

Electrum will also allow you to create 24 word seed phrases with the same command just by changing the nbits field:

Code:

make_seed(256,"","segwit")

[The Sceptical Chymist]

We are seeing the obsolescence of Legacy addresses. Maybe they will be rare someday and not generated by most new software.

Since there's literally no advantage of using it over SegWit, I don't see why not.

Yeah, but they're so cute!  Lol.  I remember reading really old threads here, and vanity addresses used to be a pretty big thing--I don't know if they still are, but it'd be pretty damn hard to create anything cool out of a segwit address unless maybe it starts with a 3.

On a related note, if you import a Mycelium seed phrase into Electrum, you have to choose BIP38 and then you get a choice of address types, legacy included.  That confused the hell out of me back when I was much more ignorant about these things (I'm still ignorant, but less so because of the collective wisdom of bitcointalk experts).

[hosseinimr93]

I don't know if they still are, but it'd be pretty damn hard to create anything cool out of a segwit address unless maybe it starts with a 3.

It's possible to generate bech32 vanity addresses and I don't think that's more difficult than generating a legacy vanity address.
The only problem with a segwit address is that it can't include 1, b , i and o and you can't have a vanity address containing those characters.

On a related note, if you import a Mycelium seed phrase into Electrum, you have to choose BIP38 and then you get a choice of address types, legacy included.  

Not only mycelium's seed phrase. Any BIP39 seed phrase can be used for generating different types of addresses.

[o_e_l_e_o]

but it'd be pretty damn hard to create anything cool out of a segwit address unless maybe it starts with a 3.

Oh I dunno about that. Here are a couple I just spun up:

3Chymistu2BS56TuweMrwVgEyCLHXrtFxR
bc1qscepchymy3k8t8gvng50gpuudvp3swawws075c

Now I would offer to send you the private keys, but of course that would be a highly risky move on your part to use an address where I know the private key. But if you did want such an address, then I could generate one for you using a split key, which means I don't know the private key.

[bitmover]

3Chymistu2BS56TuweMrwVgEyCLHXrtFxR

This address is also obsolete 
Unless you are using the console, you can only create a new wallet that uses bch addresses in electrum new versions.

I would say there is one little advantage on legacy addresses.  You can easily verify a signed message from a legacy address using any Software.

It is trivial for a third party to download and install Electrum if they don't already have it in order to verify a signed message if the wallet software they are using does not support public key recovery via segwit addresses.

I agree that it is trivial... but I expected those basic features to be universal, and not something that only works in electrum and a few more wallets.

[o_e_l_e_o]

This address is also obsolete 
Unless you are using the console, you can only create a new wallet that uses bch addresses in electrum new versions.

Not for individual vanity addresses like this. You simply create a new wallet, select "Import bitcoin addresses or private keys", and then paste the relevant private key with the prefix "p2wpkh-p2sh:" for a nested segwit address such as this one.

I agree that it is trivial... but I expected those basic features to be universal, and not something that only works in electrum and a few more wallets.

Well, there's more to it than that. Creating a universal signing scheme which will work for all bitcoin addresses and all script types is not trivial. If you are really interested, you can have a read of BIP322 and the issues surrounding it:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0322.mediawiki
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1347
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16440

Electrum have a created a very specific solution for signing with one specific type of address. And so if you want to use this specific solution, then just download Electrum.

[dkbit98]

I recently discovered that in newer Electrum versions you are not able to generate Legacy addresses anymore from a fresh wallet.

I think that Electrum developers also removed optional RBF, so now all transaction will be broadcasted with RBF by default.
You can always use alternative open source wallets instead of Electrum, for example Sparrow Wallet is really good and I think you can still use all address formats there.
I prefer using segwit format most of the times, but I would understand that in some cases people need to use old formats, for whatever reasons.

[hosseinimr93]

I think that Electrum developers also removed optional RBF, so now all transaction will be broadcasted with RBF by default.

You have the option to choose whether you want your transaction to be flagged as RBF or not.
If you don't want your transaction to be RBF, you can go to "Preferences" and uncheck "Use Replace-By-Fee". You can also check/uncheck "Replace by Fee" on "Create transaction" window.

[Charles-Tim]

I think that Electrum developers also removed optional RBF, so now all transaction will be broadcasted with RBF by default.

I think Electrum in some previous release, do not make opt-in RBF to be default. Later, opt-in RBF has been by  default on the newer update releases since many months ago. On desktop electrum, you can still be able to uncheck opt-in RBF on preference as hosseinimr93 posted, also while on mobile Electrum, no more on setting, but you can check a transaction not to support opt-in RBF (anytime you are making a transaction). Not checked by default.

The only reason I think Electrum developers can remove opt-in RBF is only when almost all nodes support full RBF. Maybe this would be possible after full RBF is set to default on Bitcoin Core which may occur next year as o_e_l_e_o presumed.