Electrum 3.0 is out ! | Bitcointalksearch.org

TheQuin

hero member

Activity: 2576

Merit: 883

Freebitco.in Support https://bit.ly/2I9BVS2

Quote from: adaseb on November 27, 2017, 06:45:05 PM

Anyone know if you can use the old Electrum 2.7.xx to sign transactions and use Electrum 3.x to create and broadcast transactions?

The Electrum 2.7 is on my cold computer and rather leave it as-is.

That will work, but you will not be able to make Segwit transactions.

adaseb

legendary

Activity: 3808

Merit: 1723

Anyone know if you can use the old Electrum 2.7.xx to sign transactions and use Electrum 3.x to create and broadcast transactions?

The Electrum 2.7 is on my cold computer and rather leave it as-is.

Abdussamad

legendary

Activity: 3710

Merit: 1586

try doing an apt-get clean, an apt-get update, apt-get upgrade and finally install python3-pip.

broadhurst

jr. member

Activity: 160

Merit: 4

Quote from: nerioseole on November 01, 2017, 11:50:26 PM

Wow - a big thanks to all the contributors!

This is a huge code upgrade !!!

   - Code migration from Python 2.7 to Python 3.x
   - Code migration from QT4 to QT5
   - Segwit support

Release Notes: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/RELEASE-NOTES

Download: https://electrum.org/#download

"To Infinity and Beyond !"

Hi,
Am trying to install 3.0/3.01/3.02 on Linux Ubuntu 16.10 and am getting this:

The following packages have unmet dependencies.
python3-pip : Depends: python-pip-whl (= 8.1.2-2) but 8.1.2-2ubuntu0.1 is to be installed
Recommends: python3-dev (>= 3.2) but it is not going to be installed
Recommends: python3-wheel but it is not going to be installed
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

Any ideas how to fix?

TheQuin

hero member

Activity: 2576

Merit: 883

Freebitco.in Support https://bit.ly/2I9BVS2

Quote from: PVminer on November 08, 2017, 04:27:24 AM

The support for bech32 is indeed very weak but Bitcoin Core can also send to (and receive) this address if you compile from github source. The bech32 support was included in commit aa624b6. There might be some other wallets that support it because these transactions can be spotted in the wild from time to time.

I just thought I would update this to save anyone the effort of trying this themselves.
I just downloaded and installed Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1 Windows installer version released 2 days ago. For some reason, they don't seem to have included the ability to send to a bech32 address.

PVminer

jr. member

Activity: 43

Merit: 1

Quote from: Spendulus on November 09, 2017, 10:14:26 PM

I agree with everything you have said. I like bech32 much better, it is practically no different than typing hex.

But that wasn't my point. I said that for electrum to "go with bc1***" on their own was a serious mistake. Think of it as a business mistake, not a technical one.

Better would have been at some get together, for a half dozen of the major players to announce support for bech32 "within a year."

I disagree

Bech32 is perfectly useful as a sending wallet. And somebody needs to polish the bugs. I found and reported a few segwit-related bugs in Electrum already.

I only wish Electrum had a less convoluted support for P2SH-P2WPKH wallets, though.

TheQuin

hero member

Activity: 2576

Merit: 883

Freebitco.in Support https://bit.ly/2I9BVS2

Quote from: Spendulus on November 09, 2017, 10:14:26 PM

But that wasn't my point. I said that for electrum to "go with bc1***" on their own was a serious mistake. Think of it as a business mistake, not a technical one.

Better would have been at some get together, for a half dozen of the major players to announce support for bech32 "within a year."

I would view this from a different perspective. Electrum already has a large user base so by going first they will encourage others to follow. Some will start to hassle sites about making withdrawals to bech32 addresses and this will speed things up. Other wallets will not want to lose market share to Electrum if people switch to it because of this, so they will feel pressured into making it available as well. At least that's what I hope will happen.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: PVminer on November 09, 2017, 01:31:48 AM

Quote from: Spendulus on November 08, 2017, 08:45:48 PM

Going with the "bc1***" on there own was a serious mistake.

There is enough confusion already, without developers placing burdens on the entire software community to support their latest style of encoding of the same data.

I disagree. P2WPKH and P2PWSH are incompatible with earlier wallets anyway and required their own addresses. BIP142 proposed cramming them into base58 format and the result was ugly. P2PWPKH started with letter "p" and P2PWSH with number "7". The latter were longer than usual base58 addresses. Base58 has a lot of limitations (mixed case is one of them; try to spell it via telephone or type on a mobile keyboard). Bech32 is much superior and now there is a clear upgrade path. Legacy addresses are base58, pure segwit is bech32. It is good that they look completely different because you can clearly see which is which.

I agree with everything you have said. I like bech32 much better, it is practically no different than typing hex.

But that wasn't my point. I said that for electrum to "go with bc1***" on their own was a serious mistake. Think of it as a business mistake, not a technical one.

Better would have been at some get together, for a half dozen of the major players to announce support for bech32 "within a year."

jackg

copper member

Activity: 2856

Merit: 3071

https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory

Quote from: mano21 on November 09, 2017, 04:43:31 PM

Should I upgrade on mac?

I am not running latest version Mac OS

Can you upgrade from the electrum program itself?

Thanks

Until now, there have been no issues with the latest version of electrum on Mac that I have seen.

No, you have to download the next version from their website www.electrum.org/#download. You can keep the older version while you check the new version works as well then and even after then.

mano21

newbie

Activity: 55

Merit: 0

Should I upgrade on mac?

I am not running latest version Mac OS

Can you upgrade from the electrum program itself?

Thanks

PVminer

jr. member

Activity: 43

Merit: 1

Quote from: Spendulus on November 08, 2017, 08:45:48 PM

Going with the "bc1***" on there own was a serious mistake.

There is enough confusion already, without developers placing burdens on the entire software community to support their latest style of encoding of the same data.

I disagree. P2WPKH and P2PWSH are incompatible with earlier wallets anyway and required their own addresses. BIP142 proposed cramming them into base58 format and the result was ugly. P2PWPKH started with letter "p" and P2PWSH with number "7". The latter were longer than usual base58 addresses. Base58 has a lot of limitations (mixed case is one of them; try to spell it via telephone or type on a mobile keyboard). Bech32 is much superior and now there is a clear upgrade path. Legacy addresses are base58, pure segwit is bech32. It is good that they look completely different because you can clearly see which is which.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: Rahar02 on November 04, 2017, 06:07:20 AM

Quote from: PVminer on November 02, 2017, 02:59:02 AM

Quote from: F8N00 on November 02, 2017, 02:02:30 AM

I just created a new segwit wallet but my new address start with bc1*************** and not with 3*********
Why?

This is a native segwit standard (so called bech32 address using P2WPKH) but this is not yet supported by merchants or other wallets. The addresses starting with 3 are P2SH addresses. They can specify many things, including segwit embedded inside P2SH (P2SH-P2WPKH). I figured out how to create such a wallet in Electrum (use BIP39 seed and m/49'/1'/0' derivation path) but it may be better to wait for some more official tutorials.

Unfortunately, segwit wallets are not standardized yet and there might be problems with importing/exporting keys between wallets.

It's a good development for electrum, but address start with bc1*** is a native segwit standard? I don't know about it, and doesn't have to start with "3" right? As long as it's segwit address, doesn't matter for me.
But, regarding segwit address cause low fees for bitcoin transaction, is it really worth? I mean, we pay very low fees such $0,4 but miners tend to pick higher fees to included into next block, especially for current market transactions, over 54,000 unconfirmed transactions.

Going with the "bc1***" on there own was a serious mistake.

There is enough confusion already, without developers placing burdens on the entire software community to support their latest style of encoding of the same data.

jackg

copper member

Activity: 2856

Merit: 3071

https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory

Quote from: HCP on November 08, 2017, 04:20:31 PM

Quote from: TryNinja on November 08, 2017, 03:58:11 PM

Why wouldn't you update it?

Because the newer versions don't play nicely with some older versions of Windows that are likely to be on "an old pc". Tongue

Honestly, if the old version is working fine... and it is purely for offline long term storage... then you probably don't need to worry about updating. It is only likely to be an issue when you decide you want to spend. There have been issues in the past with older versions not being able to sync properly. You may find that in the future, when you want to spend, you'll need to update to a newer version.

The spending issue appeared to stem from the bcc fork (it did for me anyway).
Since you can select the server to connect to there should be very little issues. And there is no electron2x as far as I can tell so it might be less of an issue.

There are also thoughts that the new bech addresses are still in a sort of experimental phase and may not function correctly (it's unlikely you'll lose anything to this but it's still possible).

HCP

legendary

Activity: 2086

Merit: 4363

Quote from: TryNinja on November 08, 2017, 03:58:11 PM

Why wouldn't you update it?

Because the newer versions don't play nicely with some older versions of Windows that are likely to be on "an old pc". Tongue

Honestly, if the old version is working fine... and it is purely for offline long term storage... then you probably don't need to worry about updating. It is only likely to be an issue when you decide you want to spend. There have been issues in the past with older versions not being able to sync properly. You may find that in the future, when you want to spend, you'll need to update to a newer version.

TryNinja

legendary

Activity: 2758

Merit: 6830

Quote from: metallicelmo on November 08, 2017, 03:43:12 PM

Can you give me some advice? I have Electrum 2.8.3 running on an old pc. Just to store bitcoin nothing more. Should I update the software every time or can I safely keep this version "offline" for months / years?

Why wouldn't you update it? Just download the installer, move to a flash drive and install it in your offline pc. You don't need internet connection to update your wallet.

But yeah, it's not that big deal if there is no critical bug that was fixed in the new update.

metallicelmo

sr. member

Activity: 882

Merit: 252

Can you give me some advice? I have Electrum 2.8.3 running on an old pc. Just to store bitcoin nothing more. Should I update the software every time or can I safely keep this version "offline" for months / years?

jackg

copper member

Activity: 2856

Merit: 3071

https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory

Quote from: cynical on November 08, 2017, 05:18:35 AM

Quote from: jackg on November 03, 2017, 07:05:45 PM

Quote from: skd on November 03, 2017, 04:33:20 PM

1/ Could someone explain in simple words, for the average users, what are the main benefits of Electrum 3.0 vs 2.9.3?

The fees are reduced due to each inputer being smaller as some of the data is stored in relation to the original address (the one beginning with a 1), and some is stored in relation to the segwit address (the segwit address). Although someone may be able to explain this more clearly than I can

Quote from: skd on November 03, 2017, 04:33:20 PM

What this segwit support is used for? Has this something to do with the forthcoming fork?

This specifically is to do with the August 1^st fork this year. The upcoming fork is Segwit2x. The August 1st fork was the Segwit one that this supports.

Quote from: skd on November 03, 2017, 04:33:20 PM

2/ If we are using ver.2.9.3 now, how shall be proceeded in installation process? Should we de-install the old version and re-install the new one, or we may install straight over v.2.9.3?

Write down you seed and if you install the new wallet in the way you previously installed the last one and it uses a heuristic algorithm so should be able to find your wallet file and if not, import your seed.

Quote from: skd on November 03, 2017, 04:33:20 PM

3/ Should we be in a hurry at all to install the 3.0 version?

No it just means that you can send with lower fees.
You do have to send the coins to a P2SK(/segwit) address before you can sign a segwit transaction.

thanks for the information!
this is great news from electrum.
what happens if we do not upgrade to the new V3 wallet immediately?
I am thinking of waiting until further updates are released as i am a small user with not that many transactions yet.

You should be fine not updating instantly. The bitcoin core devs are good at backwards compatibility and as this would be a blockchain issue and not directly an electrum issue. There's both forwards and backwards compatibility systens so that bech addresses, segwit addresses and legacy addresses. Me and some other users aren't able to update the software yet due to issues with the Python update from 2 to 3 (I currently have nothing in electrum though).

cynical

full member

Activity: 490

Merit: 136

Quote from: jackg on November 03, 2017, 07:05:45 PM

Quote from: skd on November 03, 2017, 04:33:20 PM

1/ Could someone explain in simple words, for the average users, what are the main benefits of Electrum 3.0 vs 2.9.3?

The fees are reduced due to each inputer being smaller as some of the data is stored in relation to the original address (the one beginning with a 1), and some is stored in relation to the segwit address (the segwit address). Although someone may be able to explain this more clearly than I can

Quote from: skd on November 03, 2017, 04:33:20 PM

What this segwit support is used for? Has this something to do with the forthcoming fork?

This specifically is to do with the August 1^st fork this year. The upcoming fork is Segwit2x. The August 1st fork was the Segwit one that this supports.

Quote from: skd on November 03, 2017, 04:33:20 PM

2/ If we are using ver.2.9.3 now, how shall be proceeded in installation process? Should we de-install the old version and re-install the new one, or we may install straight over v.2.9.3?

Write down you seed and if you install the new wallet in the way you previously installed the last one and it uses a heuristic algorithm so should be able to find your wallet file and if not, import your seed.

Quote from: skd on November 03, 2017, 04:33:20 PM

3/ Should we be in a hurry at all to install the 3.0 version?

No it just means that you can send with lower fees.
You do have to send the coins to a P2SK(/segwit) address before you can sign a segwit transaction.

thanks for the information!
this is great news from electrum.
what happens if we do not upgrade to the new V3 wallet immediately?
I am thinking of waiting until further updates are released as i am a small user with not that many transactions yet.

PVminer

jr. member

Activity: 43

Merit: 1

Quote from: TheQuin on November 08, 2017, 04:35:07 AM

That's interesting, so there isn't really any reason for this not to get more widely adopted then.

Two problems. Firstly, BIP173 (bech32) is relatively fresh (was designed later than segwit itself) so support for it also is very new. Secondly, inertia. Adoption of P2SH-P2WPKH is fairly slow (and it's fully compatible both ways from the start) and bech32/P2WPKH is partly incompatible with old wallets. But bech32 is very nice, much better than base58 standard and pure P2WPKH save additional transaction size compared to P2SH-P2WPKH. Also P2WSH (for pure segwit multi-signature transactions) are more secure that legacy multisignature. For 160-bit hash one can find a collision in 2^80 operations (it's doable with a large fraction of the bitcoin hashrate within weeks) if one can craft one of the public keys for the multisig. P2WSH are 256-bit and 2^128 operations are infeasible. Eventually, people will upgrade to bech32 but the adoption will not be fast.

TheQuin

hero member

Activity: 2576

Merit: 883

Freebitco.in Support https://bit.ly/2I9BVS2

@ TryNinja & PVminer, Thanks for your answers, I think I understand it much more clearly now.

Quote from: PVminer on November 08, 2017, 04:27:24 AM

The support for bech32 is indeed very weak but Bitcoin Core can also send to (and receive) this address if you compile from github source. transactions can be spotted in the wild from time to time.

That's interesting, so there isn't really any reason for this not to get more widely adopted then.

Topic: Electrum 3.0 is out ! (Read 3351 times)