No debits from the ledger possible. Who can help?

[BitMaxz]

I think the reason why it slowdown even on 5 inputs may be because of the connection problem you might be using a broken USB cable try to replace it with a known working one or try to clean the USB plug and terminals with a brush and thinner/alcohol.

And then try to update the driver follow the guide here "Guide on how to update ledger driver."

[1714052248]

1714052248

[1714052248]

1714052248

[1714052248]

1714052248

[DaveF]

What are the system specs? RAM? CPU? and so on. Are you running anything else that could be grabbing system resources?

Probably not the problem but any 1 thing that is limiting can bring some other things to a crawl.

Figure it's worth verifying that before we all go down the rabbit hole of figuring out what else it may be
.

-Dave

[Moeter81]

What are the system specs? RAM? CPU? and so on. Are you running anything else that could be grabbing system resources?

Probably not the problem but any 1 thing that is limiting can bring some other things to a crawl.

Figure it's worth verifying that before we all go down the rabbit hole of figuring out what else it may be
.

-Dave

This is my main computer.
But I also tried it with a current Mac Book Pro, the behavior was the same there.
I have already exchanged the USB cables, but I will try to clean them again.

This is my main computer.
But I also tried it with a current Mac Book Pro, the behavior was the same there.
I have already exchanged the USB cables, but I will try to clean them again.

When I bought the Ledger back then, I thought I had made a good choice.
But now I don't have a good feeling about it anymore.
Unfortunately, what is on the ledger is not exactly small.

Should I rather get another hardware wallet and try to get my inventory over there?

[LoyceV]

I think the reason why it slowdown even on 5 inputs may be because of the connection problem you might be using a broken USB cable

My assumption was this problem occurs while creating the transaction, but if you're right, it's while signing it. Is that correct, OP?

try to replace it with a known working one or try to clean the USB plug and terminals with a brush and thinner/alcohol.

I would not use paint thinner, that dissolves all kinds of plastic.

When I bought the Ledger back then, I thought I had made a good choice.
But now I don't have a good feeling about it anymore.
Unfortunately, what is on the ledger is not exactly small.

Still, 400 inputs isn't that much, and if that would be a problem, I would have expected much more complaints about it.

Should I rather get another hardware wallet and try to get my inventory over there?

That should work, as far as I know Trezor uses the same seed format. Whatever you do, don't enter your seed words in any website! You probably know this, but people still do it once in a while.

Alternative: use IanColeman's software to recover private keys, but this requires an offline setup and you should know what you're doing including offline signing. Another hardware wallet is easier and probably the safest choice.

[Moeter81]

I think the reason why it slowdown even on 5 inputs may be because of the connection problem you might be using a broken USB cable

My assumption was this problem occurs while creating the transaction, but if you're right, it's while signing it. Is that correct, OP?

try to replace it with a known working one or try to clean the USB plug and terminals with a brush and thinner/alcohol.

I would not use paint thinner, that dissolves all kinds of plastic.

When I bought the Ledger back then, I thought I had made a good choice.
But now I don't have a good feeling about it anymore.
Unfortunately, what is on the ledger is not exactly small.

Still, 400 inputs isn't that much, and if that would be a problem, I would have expected much more complaints about it.

Should I rather get another hardware wallet and try to get my inventory over there?

That should work, as far as I know Trezor uses the same seed format. Whatever you do, don't enter your seed words in any website! You probably know this, but people still do it once in a while.

Alternative: use IanColeman's software to recover private keys, but this requires an offline setup and you should know what you're doing including offline signing. Another hardware wallet is easier and probably the safest choice.

yes, it occurs when signing.

[LoyceV]

it occurs when signing.

Ledger posted about this last year:

Sending a large number of transactions to a Ledger hardware wallet is troublesome.

Their proposed solution is nothing we haven't discussed yet:

Try to consolidate your coins by sending a few larger payments to yourself. For example, if you have received 1,000 times 0.001 BTC, consolidate these inputs by sending 0.1 BTC to yourself and repeat this 10 times.
Alternatively, import your 24-word recovery phrase into a software wallet (at your own risk), preferably an offline one, and empty your account balance into an address that is derived from a newly generated seed.

Wild-Interaction on Reddit solved it by using his Trezor:

I "solved" the issue by not using Ledger. In this case I had a Trezor initialized with the same seeds so I just used that to transfer all my BTC out which took Trezor less than a second to sign (as expected).

[Moeter81]

Thanks for the tip!
i managed to do another transaction on an external wallet today i combined 42 and it took 3 hours.

Apparently I was lucky again and am now gradually getting my credit back.

Thank you for your help!

[LoyceV]

i managed to do another transaction on an external wallet today i combined 42 and it took 3 hours.

Does it get faster once you have less remaining funded inputs in your wallet?
I also wonder if your Ledger with the current wallet will work okay again once all your inputs are consolidated, or that somehow the existence of those used addresses will still slow it down.

[Moeter81]

i managed to do another transaction on an external wallet today i combined 42 and it took 3 hours.

Does it get faster once you have less remaining funded inputs in your wallet?
I also wonder if your Ledger with the current wallet will work okay again once all your inputs are consolidated, or that somehow the existence of those used addresses will still slow it down.

it's not faster yet. I'll get a new hardware wallet on Tuesday, then I'll try to get everything over and will then reset the ledger.

I will report Tuesday if I was successful.

And I got a response from Ledger today:

"It looks like your problem is that you are sending a high number of transactions to a hardware wallet. If you are sending many small payments or so-called "dust payments" to an address controlled by your hardware wallet can cause your blockchain transactions to become out of sync, which can significantly increase the time it takes to construct or validate transactions.

You can either create an account on Ledger and make the transfer little by little, or try Electrum."

[dkbit98]

Should I rather get another hardware wallet and try to get my inventory over there?

What is your exact model of ledger hardware wallet?
Old and retired model S is slower than newer models, but I don't think this change would speed anything in your case, and your computer hardware and processor is more than enough.
Maybe hardware wallet devices with faster processors will have less issues with many transactions, but this is just my speculation.

it's not faster yet. I'll get a new hardware wallet on Tuesday, then I'll try to get everything over and will then reset the ledger.

Did you choose any other manufacturer for hardware wallet?
I would suggest getting something that is open source, and if you are only dealing with Bitcoin than Passport by Foundation could be good option.
As for other hardware wallets, I never heard someone had problems with mining rewards, but you can check the list I made for open source wallets available today:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5288971.0

EDIT:
I did some research about Trezor hardware wallets, and they are saying that Trezor is not designed as a mining rewards wallet because of high  number of transactions,
so they are suggesting costumers to compile more transactions to one and then deposit to Trezor wallet.

[nc50lc]

EDIT:
I did some research about Trezor hardware wallets, and they are saying that Trezor is not designed as a mining rewards wallet because of high  number of transactions,
so they are suggesting costumers to compile more transactions to one and then deposit to Trezor wallet.

Now that you mentioned it, it looks like OP is mining bitcoins based from his post history.

@Moeter81 most mining pools usually have a "minimum payment" setting. (or a similar name)
Setting a higher value will lessen your UTXO amount since the pool will only send once in a while.
(of course, your current UTXOs wont be affected by it)

If the other hardware wallet can't consolidate/send those as well, you can create an Electrum "cold-storage" set-up to consolidate the funds or send it to a new wallet.
It's as secure as a hardware wallet as long as the offline device is totally air-gap (wiki) and wiped entirely after you've done with the consolidation.
Alternatively and recommended, send the funds to a newly setup hardware device with a new seed phrase.
Tutorial: https://electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/coldstorage.html
Creating a wallet from BIP39 seed requires some additional steps like enabling "BIP39 seed" in the seed option, extend seed (if it has a passphrase)
and selecting the correct script type (no Taproot support yet) and derivation path for account 2+.

[Moeter81]

Should I rather get another hardware wallet and try to get my inventory over there?

What is your exact model of ledger hardware wallet?
Old and retired model S is slower than newer models, but I don't think this change would speed anything in your case, and your computer hardware and processor is more than enough.
Maybe hardware wallet devices with faster processors will have less issues with many transactions, but this is just my speculation.

it's not faster yet. I'll get a new hardware wallet on Tuesday, then I'll try to get everything over and will then reset the ledger.

Did you choose any other manufacturer for hardware wallet?
I would suggest getting something that is open source, and if you are only dealing with Bitcoin than Passport by Foundation could be good option.
As for other hardware wallets, I never heard someone had problems with mining rewards, but you can check the list I made for open source wallets available today:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5288971.0

EDIT:
I did some research about Trezor hardware wallets, and they are saying that Trezor is not designed as a mining rewards wallet because of high  number of transactions,
so they are suggesting costumers to compile more transactions to one and then deposit to Trezor wallet.

Yes, My Nano S is an old model, it is several years old.
But I have the feeling that the problem with the speed is not due to the hardware.
For example, if I open Ledger live without connecting the Ledger to my computer, my computer works very hard to synchronize my transactions until the program crashes.

I ordered a Ledger Nano X because I don't just manage BTC.

I will empty my old Ledger Nanos and then set it up completely again and then use it as a second storage memory.

I've never seen a reason why mining rewards should stay on the pools longer than necessary, so I've always set it to the minimum payout amount.
I have of course changed this now.
But I had never heard of it before, which could cause problems at some point.

[nc50lc]

I've never seen a reason why mining rewards should stay on the pools longer than necessary, so I've always set it to the minimum payout amount.
I have of course changed this now.
But I had never heard of it before, which could cause problems at some point.

Normally it's not much of an issue in most wallets, unless we're taking about thousands of small payouts.
Yours is a unique case.

That setting will also save you some satoshi later when you need to spend your mining rewards.
Because it could cause you to pay more fee if you end up creating transactions with high number of inputs (higher transaction size).

[Moeter81]

I've never seen a reason why mining rewards should stay on the pools longer than necessary, so I've always set it to the minimum payout amount.
I have of course changed this now.
But I had never heard of it before, which could cause problems at some point.

Normally it's not much of an issue in most wallets, unless we're taking about thousands of small payouts.
Yours is a unique case.

That setting will also save you some satoshi later when you need to spend your mining rewards.
Because it could cause you to pay more fee if you end up creating transactions with high number of inputs (higher transaction size).

Yes, that's right.
I hadn't thought about that either, but I think it won't be a big difference, but it would be avoidable.

[LoyceV]

I did some research about Trezor hardware wallets, and they are saying that Trezor is not designed as a mining rewards wallet because of high  number of transactions,
so they are suggesting costumers to compile more transactions to one and then deposit to Trezor wallet.

That's disappointing. Ledger has the exact same recommendation.

For example, if I open Ledger live without connecting the Ledger to my computer, my computer works very hard to synchronize my transactions until the program crashes.

Ledger Live is quite bad, Electrum works better. Unless you have thousands of transactions/addresses, in that case Electrum servers may time out too.

I've never seen a reason why mining rewards should stay on the pools longer than necessary, so I've always set it to the minimum payout amount.

I always thought the main reason is to reduce consolidation fees when you use the inputs, it didn't cross my mind that it would overload a hardware wallet. Easy fix: receive small payments in Electrum or Bitcoin Core, and send them to your hardware wallet (with the lowest possible transaction fee) once your balance reaches a certain amount.

I hadn't thought about that either, but I think it won't be a big difference, but it would be avoidable.

While fees are low, you're right. But once fees peak (like in 2017), inputs around 0.001BTC mostly go towards fees. Like this:

someone made this 4909 bytes transaction with 33 inputs and 510 Satoshis/byte fee. After paying fees, his 0.033BTC turned into only 0.0079539BTC. If he would make the same transaction now with 20 Satoshis/byte fee, he would have saved 0.024BTC. Instead of just 0.0079539BTC, he would have ended up with 4 times more!

[dkbit98]

But I have the feeling that the problem with the speed is not due to the hardware.
For example, if I open Ledger live without connecting the Ledger to my computer, my computer works very hard to synchronize my transactions until the program crashes.

I would switch from using Ledger Live that is known to have bugs, and use Electrum or Sparrow wallet connected with ledger, you can use that for Bitcoin.
Reducing number of mining rewards you receive should probably solve the problems, because ledger server probably considers many transactions similar as ddos attacks.
I will try to contact all other hardware wallets to find out if they have similar issues with transactions.

I ordered a Ledger Nano X because I don't just manage BTC.

Oh no... I hope you won't have many issues with their crap battery and with other bugs this device have  
If it's not to late I would switch this to model S plus, or even better to some better open source hardware wallet.

[HCP]

Hardware wallets have never really been very good at dealing with large numbers of UTXOs as they pretty much all run using relatively low-end hardware with the associated memory/CPU limitations.

What might be "fine" for you average PC/desktop, can really cause issues with hardware wallets as they struggle to process/verify all the data from 10s/100s of transactions etc.

[LoyceV]

Hardware wallets have never really been very good at dealing with large numbers of UTXOs as they pretty much all run using relatively low-end hardware with the associated memory/CPU limitations.

What might be "fine" for you average PC/desktop, can really cause issues with hardware wallets as they struggle to process/verify all the data from 10s/100s of transactions etc.

I get that it takes some processing power to sign the transaction, but how hard could it be to design it in such a way that it doesn't matter? Especially if the same address received many transactions, Electrum handles all inputs, and only sends the ones that need signing to the hardware wallet. So even if you have 10,000 inputs, I don't get why signing a transaction with 10 inputs would take longer than it takes when you don't have those 10,000 inputs. To compare: If I would copy the same unsigned transaction from a watch-only wallet to sign it offline with Electrum, the transaction doesn't get larger if I have another 10,000 inputs that I'm not using in that transaction.
So to me, this sounds like a design flaw that they're trying to prevent by telling their customers to basically not use their hardware wallet to receive Bitcoin too often.

[Moeter81]

The day before yesterday I started to get my amounts on the new device.
I let Electrum work 13 hours yesterday for 206 inputs. When Electrum has finished signing, it is important that I unlock the ledger quickly beforehand, otherwise the error message I posted above will appear, so you always have to make sure that you are on the computer at the end of the procedure .

I now only have coins from 40 entries (previously around 500) on my ledger.
I'm just sending 20 more to my new device but it's still taking a very, very long time.
The inputs are now greatly reduced, but ledger has saved all transactions and the list has not gotten any smaller.
Is it because of that?

I'm curious how it behaves when getting the other coins over, I hope it works better/faster.

Then I will reset the old ledger and set it up again and see if everything works normally again.

[nc50lc]

The inputs are now greatly reduced, but ledger has saved all transactions and the list has not gotten any smaller.
Is it because of that?

Do you mean "Ledger Live"?
Clearing the cache should also clear the spent coins after it resynchronize.

Here's how to: https://support.ledger.com/hc/en-us/articles/4404381846929-Clear-cache-in-Ledger-Live