Does Electrum have Coin Control similar to Bitcoin Core?

[notocactus]

You can even freeze individual coins from the coins tab if you want (bear in mind that this will also freeze the address as well so that Electrum does not use it for sending transactions).

With Electrum wallet, there are two places to do freezing, and there are two freeze options.

Two places

• Address tab: right click on an address, choose freeze.
• Coins tab: right click on an UTXO, choose either Freeze coin or Freeze address. Note that if you already "Freeze" an address before, you will see two options there as Freeze coin or Unfreeze address.

Coins tab is hidden by wallet software default setting, to show it, click on View, choose Coins.

[d5000]

I have heard some people say, "you can't, so you have to create one wallet per address" which is annoying.

Maybe this is a misunderstanding. The "use one wallet per address" method is a recommended privacy technique, because with Electrum you leak your address list to the server you connect to, even if it's via Tor. If you have the bad luck that you're connecting to a chain analysis node, then all your addresses will be aggregated to a "wallet" (on sites like walletexplorer.com, Arkham etc.).

This means: using Coin Control on Electrum is not enough to hide the connections between the addresses of your wallet, unfortunately (see also this thread about a possible solution).

[LoyceV]

The "use one wallet per address" method is a recommended privacy technique, because with Electrum you leak your address list to the server you connect to, even if it's via Tor.

If you replace your "one wallet per address" by a watch-only wallet, you can add random addresses to your wallet to make it look like they belong together. It would be even better to make this a hidden feature, so you can add watch-only addresses to your normal hot wallet.

[notocactus]

If you replace your "one wallet per address" by a watch-only wallet, you can add random addresses to your wallet to make it look like they belong together. It would be even better to make this a hidden feature, so you can add watch-only addresses to your normal hot wallet.

I am a little bit confusing with your post.

I know with a watch-only wallet, it's allowed to add many Bitcoin addresses to it, and watch transaction history of an address, and many addresses too. It's simple to understand.

With your post, I feel like you meant that I have a hot wallet with private keys, that can be spent, and I can add an address or addresses to that wallet, and have  such addresses as watch only only. It's quite strange with me, the first time I read about it.

I tried to test with Electrum wallet and there is no way to do that with a hot wallet.

Seems like I misunderstood your post because afaik, there is either spendable wallet or non-spendable wallet, there is no hybrid wallet.

Before testing, I thought that it can make a hybrid decoy wallet but I also imagined it only escalates risk for users because adding a new or some Bitcoin addresses with watch-only and have balance into a hot wallet will possibly bring more danger of more severe physical attacks.

[d5000]

If you replace your "one wallet per address" by a watch-only wallet, you can add random addresses to your wallet to make it look like they belong together. It would be even better to make this a hidden feature, so you can add watch-only addresses to your normal hot wallet.

In principle this is an interesting idea, but I think you would have to be very strict and knowledgeable to game the chain analysis companies with this strategy, to prevent them to apply clustering techniques. If this became a widespread privacy technique, they could for example only take into account connections where an outgoing (broadcasted) transaction was received from the client.

In older Electrum versions you could import private keys also into "normal" wallets, but this feature was removed afaik.

It can perhaps be used if you already leaked your list once (by mistake) and then try to "correct it" by creating several watch only wallets and connecting them several times over time, hoping that it connects to the same chain analysis server ...

A problem is of course also the practical aspect: you would have to set up an "alternative" strategy to use your wallet normally, at least if you transact and not HODL only.

[LoyceV]

I tried to test with Electrum wallet and there is no way to do that with a hot wallet.

My post was hypothetical: "it would be nice to make this a hidden feature". It doesn't exist (yet).

In principle this is an interesting idea, but I think you would have to be very strict and knowledgeable to game the chain analysis companies with this strategy, to prevent them to apply clustering techniques. If this became a widespread privacy technique, they could for example only take into account connections where an outgoing (broadcasted) transaction was received from the client.

That would be a huge win for privacy, as it means they can't assume any addresses synced by a wallet belong together anymore. Add the fact that Electrum frequently connects to a different server, and thus they won't see the majority of all broadcasted transactions, so they can't possibly know what belongs together anymore. But again, this is pure hypothetical. Loading random watch-only addresses would also add an increased load on the Electrum server.

In older Electrum versions you could import private keys also into "normal" wallets, but this feature was removed afaik.

I get why they did it, but for someone who considers himself to be an advanced user, I would like to get back that feature.

A problem is of course also the practical aspect: you would have to set up an "alternative" strategy to use your wallet normally, at least if you transact and not HODL only.

That's easy: on your watch-only wallet with imported addresses to mix with your own addresses, freeze the ones that aren't yours.

[d5000]

That would be a huge win for privacy, as it means they can't assume any addresses synced by a wallet belong together anymore.

You mean that the client should have a list of random addresses and always only query a subset of them, right? Because if you do that adding/removing random addresses manually, the chain analysis server should be able to apply clustering techniques (because humans are fallible and lazy and e.g. would always query the same "real" addresses ...), as long as you don't do this exercise every time you connect ...

Loading random watch-only addresses would also add an increased load on the Electrum server.

I'm not sure why, I think it's the same if you query a list of "real" or "fabricated" addresses? The load should depend on the entries in the blockchain index the server has to query. And it depends then which addresses you add, if you add addresses that were never used, then there would be nothing in the Electrum server database and thus no additional entries to query. These addresses would only perhaps add load to chain analysis servers, because they would store the list so they can add them to a cluster ... (that would actually be a good thing heh ...).

Loading random watch-only addresses would also add an increased load on the Electrum server.
That's easy: on your watch-only wallet with imported addresses to mix with your own addresses, freeze the ones that aren't yours.

Seems I was wrong with my last post ... Apparently you can create also a wallet with spendable private keys (not a HD wallet of course), not only a watch-only wallet, where you can freely import keys and addresses and also spend from them (in the cases where you imported the private key).

That would in theory make it possible to automate the process with a simple shell or Python script: each time you'd connect, as a first step it would interact with Electrum via the command line, create a new wallet importing some of the addresses from your HD wallet while still offline, then generate and create random addresses and import them (you could even download some used addresses from the last X blocks via a block explorer API importing them as watch-only), and then finally connecting to the Electrum server with this "mixed wallet". Each time you use this script, another mix of addresses would be transmitted to the server, so they can't apply any clustering.

Interesting idea, this could be possible for my skill level to try it

[nc50lc]

How do I select from what address im sending funds from? I have heard some people say, "you can't, so you have to create one wallet per address" which is annoying. But im not sure if this is true.

Can we get the reference of that quote, please. (thanks in advance)

It's bugging me that it looks very familiar as I've real almost all threads in this board
but I can't find the exact topic where it came from.

That would also be great to explain why it's not true or why it's true depending on the context.

[LoyceV]

Apparently you can create also a wallet with spendable private keys (not a HD wallet of course), not only a watch-only wallet, where you can freely import keys and addresses and also spend from them (in the cases where you imported the private key).

It would be even better if you can import watch-only addresses and private keys into the same wallet, but unfortunately Electrum doesn't allow that. I tested it, and you can only add addresses or privkeys.

[nc50lc]

It would be even better if you can import watch-only addresses and private keys into the same wallet, but unfortunately Electrum doesn't allow that. I tested it, and you can only add addresses or privkeys.

The other removed feature (prvKey import to an HD wallet) may be debatable
And could be easily implemented as an advanced wallet via descriptors.

But combining bare addresses and private keys into a single wallet will be a management nightmare, not only on the user but the wallet as well.
Unless there's a good use-case aside from gaming any chain analysis servers for privacy, the devs might not consider it.

Anyways, here's the "Advanced Wallet" implementation reference issue for anyone who wants to suggest more ideas: implement advanced wallet option
It'll probably more forward after output script descriptor is implemented.

BTW, Bitcoin Core also doesn't allow import of watch-only descriptors to a regular wallet
And vice-versa, doesn't allow to import descriptors with secrets to a watch-only wallet.
The reason, I don't know, but might also be the same as Electrum's reasons.

[LoyceV]

But combining bare addresses and private keys into a single wallet will be a management nightmare, not only on the user but the wallet as well.

I didn't think this would be difficult to manage for a wallet. I've been using this in Bitcoin Core for many years.
But you have a point on the user end: if you import watch-only addresses that aren't yours, chances are you'll make a mistake at some point and request a deposit to an address that isn't yours. That's a very good reason to NOT do this.

BTW, Bitcoin Core also doesn't allow import of watch-only descriptors to a regular wallet

My non-HD non-descriptor wallet in Bitcoin Core can still do this

[d5000]

It would be even better if you can import watch-only addresses and private keys into the same wallet, but unfortunately Electrum doesn't allow that. I tested it, and you can only add addresses or privkeys.

I've just tested it myself and it seems to work with a trick:

- create the wallet importing at least one privkey in WIF format
- then open the Console and add a watch-only address with the following command:

Code:

wallet.db.add_imported_address("ADDRESS", {})

Tested with electrum 4.8.1

Caution - expert users who know exactly what they do only!

Be aware that the address will be shown as each other address in the "Addresses" tab, there is no "watch-only" label or so. So indeed it's easy to send coins accidentally there if you're not careful ...

Maybe it would be worthy to create a specific thread for that method, as here it's slightly OT

[Cricktor]

Nice find, d5000!

If I had imported addresses that I can't control and move coins for, I'd immediately freeze those addresses after the import. This marks those addresses somewhat and prevents them being selected as receive addresses.

I wouldn't mind having in Electrum the option to color code selected addresses or coins in the Coins tab. It's not an important feature request for me and I didn't submit it so far. I'd rather see other important features being implemented first, like descriptors and full taproot support.