Sparrow vs Electrum for desktop

[apogio]

Hello people, I am interested in the significant differences that you have found between these two applications.

I have googled it, but the best audience to answer are the people in this forum.

1. I have a multisig vault, which I would like to be able to "monitor" using the cosigners xpubs.
2. I have a cold storage wallet, which I would also like to monitor as "watch-only"
3. I have a hot wallet, created using BlueWallet.

I know I can do all 3 in both of them. But are there differences in features etc, that you have spotted?

Example: I think, and I may be mistaken, that Electrum doesn't use BIP39 seed phrases, am I wrong?

[1714645514]

1714645514

[1714645514]

1714645514

[1714645514]

1714645514

[1714645514]

1714645514

[hosseinimr93]

Example: I think, and I may be mistaken, that Electrum doesn't use BIP39 seed phrases, am I wrong?

Electrum doesn't generate a BIP39 seed phrase and uses its own algorithm when generating a seed phrase.
Of course, you can import a BIP39 seed phrase in electrum. To do so, just click on "Options" when entering your seed phrase and check "BIP39 seed".

[o_e_l_e_o]

I would say the main benefit that Sparrow has over Electrum for your use case is how easy it so connect to your own node and not rely on a third party. Electrum requires that you set up an Electrum server on top of your node first; Sparrow can just be pointed directly at your node. Sparrow also allows you to Whirlpool directly from your wallet, as well as supporting other privacy improvements such as PayNyms and Stonewall transactions, but this is probably irrelevant if you are just going to use it as a watch only wallet.

[hugeblack]

Although Sparrow excels in terms of UI and UX, in addition to the ease of connecting your nodes, in addition to Taproot addresses and better performance of the Lightning Network, Electrum provides you with basic and good features for all these requirements, so if you are familiar with Electrum or have not used any of these wallets before it is a good choice.

I also think that the way Electrum deals with individual HW plugins is better. so I will vote for it.

[apogio]

I would say the main benefit that Sparrow has over Electrum for your use case is how easy it so connect to your own node and not rely on a third party. Electrum requires that you set up an Electrum server on top of your node first; Sparrow can just be pointed directly at your node.

I have, actually! But I forgot to mention it. It was a 2-clicks process to do it. Provided that you already have a node of course.

Can you elaborate though? Is it better (and for what reason), to run Electrum Server upon your node, instead of connecting Sparrow to your node?

Although Sparrow excels in terms of UI and UX, in addition to the ease of connecting your nodes, in addition to Taproot addresses and better performance of the Lightning Network, Electrum provides you with basic and good features for all these requirements, so if you are familiar with Electrum or have not used any of these wallets before it is a good choice.

I also think that the way Electrum deals with individual HW plugins is better. so I will vote for it.

There are actually too many people that used to use Electrum since it was released and haven't switched to any other alternative. That's what made me curious.

Electrum doesn't generate a BIP39 seed phrase and uses its own algorithm when generating a seed phrase.
Of course, you can import a BIP39 seed phrase in electrum. To do so, just click on "Options" when entering your seed phrase and check "BIP39 seed".

Thanks! I have tried it and I can verify that.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Can you elaborate though? Is it better (and for what reason), to run Electrum Server upon your node, instead of connecting Sparrow to your node?

No, it's no better or worse. In both cases, all your data will come from your own node rather than that of a third party, and so your privacy will be maintained. If you already have an Electrum server set up, then no reason not to use it.

There are actually too many people that used to use Electrum since it was released and haven't switched to any other alternative. That's what made me curious.

If you are already familiar with Electrum and already have a server set up, then I see no reason to change unless you wanted to use Whirlpool.

[apogio]

If you are already familiar with Electrum and already have a server set up, then I see no reason to change unless you wanted to use Whirlpool.

Ok, so now you got my attention with Whirlpool. I have Sparrow running over my Bitcoin Node. So I don't run an Electrum Server personally.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Ahh, I see. I misunderstood your previous post - I thought you were saying you had already set up an Electrum server, when you were actually saying you already have Sparrow pointed at your own node. In that case, I would just use Sparrow for the use cases you described in your first post. It is more than capable of doing all of those, and you will maintain your privacy since it will only sync via your own node.

Whirlpool is a coinjoin implementation, run by Samourai, which is accessible via Sparrow. You can read more about it here: https://sparrowwallet.com/docs/mixing-whirlpool.html. Essentially, you pay a small fee and then coordinate with other users to create transactions which send the same amount of bitcoin you put in back to you, but in a way which obfuscates which bitcoin actually belong to you. If you are interested in anonymizing your bitcoin so entities such as centralized exchanges and blockchain analysis companies cannot trace it, then you could look in to this. If you do plan to use Whirlpool, make sure you also connect to the coordinator via Tor (explained in the link I just shared).

[apogio]

Ahh, I see. I misunderstood your previous post - I thought you were saying you had already set up an Electrum server, when you were actually saying you already have Sparrow pointed at your own node. In that case, I would just use Sparrow for the use cases you described in your first post. It is more than capable of doing all of those, and you will maintain your privacy since it will only sync via your own node.

Whirlpool is a coinjoin implementation, run by Samourai, which is accessible via Sparrow. You can read more about it here: https://sparrowwallet.com/docs/mixing-whirlpool.html. Essentially, you pay a small fee and then coordinate with other users to create transactions which send the same amount of bitcoin you put in back to you, but in a way which obfuscates which bitcoin actually belong to you. If you are interested in anonymizing your bitcoin so entities such as centralized exchanges and blockchain analysis companies cannot trace it, then you could look in to this. If you do plan to use Whirlpool, make sure you also connect to the coordinator via Tor (explained in the link I just shared).

Thanks! yeah I am in the middle of watching this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TcUY2yU41w&t=1101s&ab_channel=BTCSessions to make it work.

[apogio]

One more question! For signing transactions, which one is more easy and convenient?

Let's say I want to sign a transactions using 2 cosigners from my 2-of-3 multisig, which one is easier to use?

How easy is it to use a signing device to sign a transaction?

How easy is it to sign with one cosigner and then wait till I get to where the other cosigner is in order to sign too?

[tranthidung]

How easy is it to sign with one cosigner and then wait till I get to where the other cosigner is in order to sign too?

When you set up a multisig wallet, you will need enough co-signers to sign your transactions. If you set up a 3/5 co-signer multisig, you will need 3 of 5 co-signers to sign your transactions.

Any of those 5 co-signers can sign it, no need to have any co-signer in order. When a transaction gets enough co-signers sign it, it will be executed.

[apogio]

How easy is it to sign with one cosigner and then wait till I get to where the other cosigner is in order to sign too?

When you set up a multisig wallet, you will need enough co-signers to sign your transactions. If you set up a 3/5 co-signer multisig, you will need 3 of 5 co-signers to sign your transactions.

Any of those 5 co-signers can sign it, no need to have any co-signer in order. When a transaction gets enough co-signers sign it, it will be executed.

Hi! Supposing I have set a 2-of-3 multisig vault, my question actually is whether I can sign a transaction in New York, then take a hash of a partially signed transaction and then go to San Diego in order to sign with my second cosigner.

The afforementioned cities are examples only.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Hi! Supposing I have set a 2-of-3 multisig vault, my question actually is whether I can sign a transaction in New York, then take a hash of a partially signed transaction and then go to San Diego in order to sign with my second cosigner.

Not a hash of the transaction, but the transaction itself. But yes, you can do this.

You would simply create the transaction on the first wallet, and sign it with that wallet, before exporting the transaction (the specifics of this will depend on the wallet you are using). You can usually export it as some form of raw text, save it to a file, generate a QR code, etc. Then you can send that partially signed transaction to another destination electronically, or put it on a USB drive, SD card, your phone, etc., and carry it with you. Once you have access to the second wallet, you import it, sign it with this second wallet, and then you are ready to broadcast it.

[apogio]

Hi! Supposing I have set a 2-of-3 multisig vault, my question actually is whether I can sign a transaction in New York, then take a hash of a partially signed transaction and then go to San Diego in order to sign with my second cosigner.

Not a hash of the transaction, but the transaction itself. But yes, you can do this.

You would simply create the transaction on the first wallet, and sign it with that wallet, before exporting the transaction (the specifics of this will depend on the wallet you are using). You can usually export it as some form of raw text, save it to a file, generate a QR code, etc. Then you can send that partially signed transaction to another destination electronically, or put it on a USB drive, SD card, your phone, etc., and carry it with you. Once you have access to the second wallet, you import it, sign it with this second wallet, and then you are ready to broadcast it.

Excellent. But, the obvious question here is: what happens if I have signed a transaction with a fee of let's say 20sat/vB, but when I go to the other cosigner the fee is too low? Should I wait? Should I initiate another transaction and sign it with a higher fee using the cosigner where I am and then travel back to the other cosigner? This question also applies to timelocked transactions, and I think the answers are obvious, but somewhat inconvenient. Don't you think?

[o_e_l_e_o]

But, the obvious question here is: what happens if I have signed a transaction with a fee of let's say 20sat/vB, but when I go to the other cosigner the fee is too low?

You can:

• Wait
• Create a new transaction with a higher fee
• Broadcast it anyway and hope for the best
• Broadcast it anyway and create a new transaction with a higher fee to replace the existing one should it not confirm in a reasonable time
• Direct the change to a single sig wallet you control so you can use CPFP

[apogio]

But, the obvious question here is: what happens if I have signed a transaction with a fee of let's say 20sat/vB, but when I go to the other cosigner the fee is too low?

You can:

• Wait
• Create a new transaction with a higher fee
• Broadcast it anyway and hope for the best
• Broadcast it anyway and create a new transaction with a higher fee to replace the existing one should it not confirm in a reasonable time
• Direct the change to a single sig wallet you control so you can use CPFP

I will save this answer on a notepad. Thanks

[cygan]

btw today also the new version of the sparrow wallet was released. with version 1.7.7 come the following changes:

• Improved mempool fee rates chart
• Multiple improvements for a high fee environment
• Performance optimizations for large wallets

in addition, with this release comes a border wallets integration & ux

https://github.com/sparrowwallet/sparrow/releases/tag/1.7.7
https://sparrowwallet.com/download/

[satscraper]

For me the most noticeable advantage of Sparrow  is its ability to pair and subsequently work   with airgapped hardware wallets  via QR codes. (Sure not all  airgapped HW  are pliable to such   type of pairing and communication but my Passport 2  is capable to do these). Electrum does it exclusively via json file.

[DireWolfM14]

I started playing with Sparrow again last night, and I must say it is an impressive wallet.  Lots of great features, and a very user friendly UI.  Not to mention that it's among the few hierarchical deterministic wallets (other than core) that can generate taproot addresses.  As far as I know it might be the only taproot wallet with Bip39 seed phrase backups.

The only thing I can't get my head around is why they haven't implemented the ability to import single private keys.  You can import a master private key, but single private keys or single addresses for watching, can't be imported.  Maybe the development team is focusing on private use of bitcoin, and importing single keys isn't conducive to the preservation of privacy, but other than that I can't see why the feature isn't there.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The reason I've seen given on their GitHub for this is to discourage address reuse. I can appreciate that, but conversely I occasionally have the need to import a single private key and I won't reuse the address, such as sweeping paper wallets. It would be nice to have this feature even if it was hidden behind "Advanced Options" or similar.