What needs to be improved or added to your preferred BTC Wallet?

[Forsyth Jones]

Another improvement that wallets like Sparrow could implement in their code is by providing a tool similar to the iancoleman mnemonic code converter website, the difference is that instead of accessing a website in the browser, access could be done directly from the GUI.

[Kruw]

My preferred Bitcoin wallet is Wasabi, and I have a few improvements in mind:

-Support for Silent Payment addresses (BIP352)
-Direct payments in coinjoins available in the GUI instead of only in the RPC
-Sign/verify message

[pooya87]

Another improvement that wallets like Sparrow could implement in their code is by providing a tool similar to the iancoleman mnemonic code converter website, the difference is that instead of accessing a website in the browser, access could be done directly from the GUI.

From the Sparrow wallet docs and the previews it looks like it does support both BIP39 and Electrum mnemonics and you can also set a custom derivation path. That's usually the basic thing that any deterministic wallet should do (accepting BIP39 mnemonics at least + allowing to set the derivation path + allowing to get individual keys)
https://sparrowwallet.com/docs/quick-start.html

Is there any specific feature in iancoleman that you had in mind that is missing?

[Forsyth Jones]

From the Sparrow wallet docs and the previews it looks like it does support both BIP39 and Electrum mnemonics and you can also set a custom derivation path. That's usually the basic thing that any deterministic wallet should do (accepting BIP39 mnemonics at least + allowing to set the derivation path + allowing to get individual keys)
https://sparrowwallet.com/docs/quick-start.html

Is there any specific feature in iancoleman that you had in mind that is missing?

The only thing that the sparrow wallet can't obtain is that we have access to the WIF private keys of each public address that it derives from the BIP39 mnemonic.

I could suggest this on the project's github, maybe they would join.

They have added unique functions in this wallet such as signature verification.

It's indeed an excellent wallet!

[satscraper]

Is there any specific feature in iancoleman that you had in mind that is missing?

I think he wanna see the private keys along side with addresses but I think  this is an  obsolete approach. After all, Sparrow is not just a simple "box containing set of the key-pairs" but wallet build on the base of new architecture, namely descriptor one, and those descriptors accompany  each wallet, created by Sparrow  client.

[Forsyth Jones]

One of the things missing from the wallets is multiple support for native segwit, bech32m and taproot addresses.

Some wallets like Electrum, you must re-import the same mnemonic (in this example, imagine a bip39 seed) to change the address type:
m/44'/0'/0' legacy
m/49'/0'/0' nested segwit
m/84'/0'/0' segwit v0

And the funds can't be spent at the same time if, e.g., it is in a BIP84 address and another in BIP86, you need to make two sends (paying more fees) to move the funds from a BIP39 wallet to the different derivation paths.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin Core is the ONLY wallet that allows you to send funds even if they are to different address types, plus it offers the option to send remaining funds to a change address of the same address type of the the sender (better for privacy).

How difficult is it for wallets, at least the best known ones, to follow the same model as bitcoin core?

[Pmalek]

Meanwhile, Bitcoin Core is the ONLY wallet that allows you to send funds even if they are to different address types...

I guess you were trying to say that Bitcoin Core allows you to use different address types in the same transaction when sending bitcoin. All wallets allow you to send to different address types, but you can't combine different address types in an outgoing transaction.

How difficult is it for wallets, at least the best known ones, to follow the same model as bitcoin core?

I have never really thought about it. But let's say you create an Electrum wallet and import a private key to a native segwit address. What would happen if you now tried to import a new private key, but this time pointing to a nested segwit address? Is such an option not available?

[Forsyth Jones]

I guess you were trying to say that Bitcoin Core allows you to use different address types in the same transaction when sending bitcoin. All wallets allow you to send to different address types, but you can't combine different address types in an outgoing transaction.

That's the point, some wallets like Bitcoin Core, Coinomi and I think Bitbox02 allow you to combine different types of addresses in outgoing transaction. This is a very useful feature if you want to move funds that are allocated to different addresses.

I have never really thought about it. But let's say you create an Electrum wallet and import a private key to a native segwit address. What would happen if you now tried to import a new private key, but this time pointing to a nested segwit address? Is such an option not available?

Yes, it is. But you can only do this with child private keys, that is, addresses.

You cannot combine different types of addresses from a BIP39 seed in the same wallet. The same goes for Sparrow.

I think with the adoption of segwit, legacy and nested segwit addresses will fall out of favor over time, but people will continue to use more than one type of address, like bech32 and bech32m (taproot).

[pooya87]

Meanwhile, Bitcoin Core is the ONLY wallet that allows you to send funds even if they are to different address types, plus it offers the option to send remaining funds to a change address of the same address type of the the sender (better for privacy).

How difficult is it for wallets, at least the best known ones, to follow the same model as bitcoin core?

That option should already exist in all wallets without question. It is not just trivial to implement but it is mandatory to be able to send coins "to" any combination of address types because your wallet type could be P2WPKH and yet you may want to send coins to P2PKH and the change to P2WPKH.

But sending from a combination of address types (as inputs) is harder to implement in a deterministic wallet that relies on a wallet class that has a fixed type and keys, serialization for sighash, etc. takes place there.
It is not that complicated though, AFAIK Electrum already supports that.

[Pmalek]

That's the point, some wallets like Bitcoin Core, Coinomi and I think Bitbox02 allow you to combine different types of addresses in outgoing transaction.

How does Bitbox do that? I am asking because it's a hardware wallet. Hardware wallets usually don't allow importing private keys. How would you spend coins from a native and nested segwit address in the same transaction using Bitbox? Won't the wallet be pointed to one unique derivation path for a specific address type and not multiple paths at once?

[Forsyth Jones]

How does Bitbox do that? I am asking because it's a hardware wallet. Hardware wallets usually don't allow importing private keys. How would you spend coins from a native and nested segwit address in the same transaction using Bitbox? Won't the wallet be pointed to one unique derivation path for a specific address type and not multiple paths at once?

You're getting it wrong, I'm not talking about importing private keys, but you can add P2WPKH, P2TR etc accounts.

All wallets operate with one or more derivation paths: BIP44, 49, 84 and 86. Some are able to provide multiple support (bitcoin Core) and the user can choose which type of address they would like to receive from.

However, it is not possible to join inputs from different address types and send them to a new output.

[dkbit98]

Silent Payments is great for privacy and they should be added to all Bitcoin wallets including Electrum, Sparrow wallet and others.
Right now there is only Cake wallet supporting Silent Payments, and Blue wallet recently added partial support.
It would be interesting to see what hardware wallet manufacturer will be the first to add support for Silent Payments.

[Pmalek]

You're getting it wrong, I'm not talking about importing private keys, but you can add P2WPKH, P2TR etc accounts.

What does that mean when you say that you can add an account to your Bitbox hardware wallet? The account must contain signing keys (private keys) to sign the transactions you want to send.

However, it is not possible to join inputs from different address types and send them to a new output.

Yes, that's what I am saying as well. But what I understood from your previous post is that this is exactly what you can do (in some form) with a Bitbox hardware wallet. I think we do not understand each other properly.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

One thing I really dream to see as a feature in wallets especially my Electrum wallet is the ability to consolidate my different UTXOs to a single address locally within the wallet without sending it to the mempool nor pay transaction fees. Just like a local merger within the same wallet. I have literally spent a lot consolidating them and if I can by any miracle stop paying these fees. I would be so glad.

[Pmalek]

One thing I really dream to see as a feature in wallets especially my Electrum wallet is the ability to consolidate my different UTXOs to a single address locally within the wallet without sending it to the mempool nor pay transaction fees. Just like a local merger within the same wallet. I have literally spent a lot consolidating them and if I can by any miracle stop paying these fees. I would be so glad.

That's never going to work. On a protocol level, you can't make an on-chain transaction without actually making that transaction, regardless if it's to an address in the same wallet or a completely different wallet. The network doesn't care if you are consolidating into the same wallet or sending your BTC to a brand-new wallet.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

One thing I really dream to see as a feature in wallets especially my Electrum wallet is the ability to consolidate my different UTXOs to a single address locally within the wallet without sending it to the mempool nor pay transaction fees. Just like a local merger within the same wallet. I have literally spent a lot consolidating them and if I can by any miracle stop paying these fees. I would be so glad.

That's never going to work. On a protocol level, you can't make an on-chain transaction without actually making that transaction, regardless if it's to an address in the same wallet or a completely different wallet. The network doesn't care if you are consolidating into the same wallet or sending your BTC to a brand-new wallet.

I'm aware of these limitations and difficulties, but there's no such word as impossible in my dictionary. I love to dream, and solutions likely follows suit when your dream is sound. I'm just communicating my desires in the wallet of my choice , Believe me the word never is a state of the mind and not a possibility, If the developers commit themselves to achieving this, there would be a way, I might change my direction in programming tomorrow and form a team, dedicate myself to its actualization and get it, it can only take time. Until then let me continue wishing.

[Forsyth Jones]

Yes, that's what I am saying as well. But what I understood from your previous post is that this is exactly what you can do (in some form) with a Bitbox hardware wallet. I think we do not understand each other properly.

Even so, it's not complete, BitboxApp doesn't support/search for UTXO in legacy addresses, I have UTXO in legacy addresses and it couldn't see it, I think it's a mistake to ignore legacy, even though the format is increasingly falling into disuse.

I haven't yet had the opportunity to test sending UTXO of scripts/address formats in each one, I don't know if it behaves the same as Bitcoin Core.

[pooya87]

Believe me the word never is a state of the mind and not a possibility, If the developers commit themselves to achieving this, there would be a way,

It is not possible because that's not how Bitcoin works. In Bitcoin your funds are not inside your wallet to be consolidated inside your wallet. They are in the blockchain and in order to consolidate them you have to "update the ledger" and to update that you need to create a valid transaction and broadcast it to the network.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

Believe me the word never is a state of the mind and not a possibility, If the developers commit themselves to achieving this, there would be a way,

It is not possible because that's not how Bitcoin works. In Bitcoin your funds are not inside your wallet to be consolidated inside your wallet. They are in the blockchain and in order to consolidate them you have to "update the ledger" and to update that you need to create a valid transaction and broadcast it to the network.

Nice explanation there, I perfectly understand it now. Trying to my earlier wish is indirectly trying to change how bitcoin operates totally and not doing some work to merge UTXOs at the wallet level. I kind of missed that part that my funds are on the blockchain and those individual UTXOs are on different addresses on the blockchain, now consolidating them would mean transferring those funds to the new address still on the blockchain which can only be made possible by creating a Valid transaction and broadcasting it to the network.

Thanks @pooya87 for that piece, it really made a upgrade in my perception of wallets.