Topic: Migrate UTXOs from one wallet to another (Read 494 times)

See my previous example of how I unconcealed a Whirlpool user due to them splitting their coins into many rounds:

I do not get the privacy benefit of WabiSabi here.

• WabiSabi:  The observer sees my input entering a WabiSabi coinjoin => coin is concealed
• Whirlpool:  The observer sees my (premix) input entering 70 coinjoins => coin is concealed

It all depends on your habits on how to spend UTXO.

If you tend to spend the large amounts  that require a large number of small UTXOs consolidating them during an empty mempool can lead to cost savings.

On the contrary, if you only require a single UTXO for a payment, there might be a different outcome.

If a user is going to consolidate anyway (regardless of whether their inputs are already mixed or not), then doing so in a WabiSabi coinjoin is strictly a privacy benefit.  I'm not sure what nuance you are trying to discover here, so I'll provide more context:

- Consolidation within a WabiSabi coinjoin by whales is inherently limited by the number of UTXOs or size of their UTXOs. Different clients that implement the WabiSabi protocol have different limits on the number of UTXOs you can consolidate in a single round.  With Wasabi, it's 10, with Trezor, it's 20, and with BTCPay Server, you can register up to 30 inputs using "Coinsolidation mode".
- Consolidating mixed WabiSabi outputs is generally not harmful to your privacy even outside of a coinjoin transaction, a whale consolidated 207 inputs in this extreme case (about 205 of these inputs are WabiSabi coinjoin outputs, I saw 2 inputs that weren't coinjoined just by glancing), but there's no link established as to which inputs originally created these mixed outputs that were consolidated.
- Consolidating mixed Whirlpool inputs without sufficient remixing is different and does hurt your privacy because the tx0 premix transaction shows all of the coinjoin rounds you entered initially.  When a user consolidates many outputs from all these linked coinjoin rounds, it provides little obfuscation as to which premix transaction led to that postmix payment:


^The difference with WabiSabi is there is no tx0 premix transaction, so an observer tracking your input can only watch it go directly into a single WabiSabi coinjoin, whereas an observer tracking a Whirlpool input can watch it enter up to 70 Whirlpool coinjoins from the tx0 premix (or even more than 70 if the user links toxic change from multiple tx0s together).

So when a user wants to consolidate his many mixed inputs into an output, does he spend them in a WabiSabi coinjoin where other users can consolidate and coinjoin simultaneously?

During coinjoin.  You can see how 12 UTXOs were consolidated in this coinjoin transaction:


If this were a normal transaction, you would assume all 237 inputs were owned by the same user.  But, since it's a WabiSabi coinjoin, you can't determine how many users are participating, or which inputs belong to each user.

If you consolidate 20 inputs into 1 output then, unless taproot or multi-sig as destination is used, all inputs are probably owned by one person.

Can you give me an example of private consolidation with wasabi?  I do not understand.  You mean after the coinjoin or during coinjoin?

Not if he consolidates them in a WabiSabi coinjoin, observers would have no idea if those inputs are owned by 1 person or 20 people.

No, but if OP consolidates 20 inputs then it is clear these were owned by the same person.


Consolidating all your whirlpooled outputs alone is impossible without noticing the warnings.  In sparrow when spending a mixed output you are told to use Stonewall by default.

WabiSabi coinjoins are the most private coinjoins, and it is the perfect solution for OP's privacy concerns.  Take this WabiSabi coinjoin that confirmed in the last block for example:

https://mempool.space/tx/921ad5bfd23403e04682222387608b6231ef715cc4ce079ffd1644f2480dab37

There's 237 inputs and 225 outputs in this coinjoin (net consolidation of 12 UTXOs). If OP consolidates his 20 inputs within this transaction, how would anyone be able to determine that those 20 inputs belong to him?  You can't tell how many users are involved in the coinjoin, or which inputs are commonly owned by each user.

I love coinjoins! Not WabiSabi conjoins though.

In general I love pluralism, so I am not using only one product or tool. That's why I sincerely doubt your motives. You always suggest wabisabi like it is the only tool that exists.

 I tried not to criticise the tool because I respect everyone's opinion, but using ONLY one tool, for me is bad, no matter what the tool is. So I will put a full stop here, because I think OP has taken all the opinions he wanted. Lets allow him to decide anything he wants, there is no reason to argue once again. Have a nice day

Creating multiple UTXOs in the present doesn't provide a benefit compared to creating multiple UTXOs in the future, you're still creating them no matter what.  Besides, what are the chances the UTXO sizes he picks today will match the exact value he needs for a purchase made in the future?


Why don't you like coinjoins?

Because multiple UTXOs can be beneficial in the future where OP may need to spend an entire UTXO without creating change.

Also for privacy reasons, because consolidating them is not a good choice. Don't give me the Wasabi consolidation argument once more. I understand you like it but I don't like it so it's not worth trying to convince me. There is also no need to suggest Wasabi every single time. There are multiple tools for multiple use cases. Using only wasabi products for everything is not a good choice any way you decide to see it.

Why would you highly recommend not to consolidate the inputs?...


You don't have to trust Wasabi, it's completely open source.

I highly recommend NOT to consolidate the inputs. Use whatever tool you wish, but I would also recommend what o_e_l_e_o said. Just send every UTXO in various time intervals and you will be more than ok. Keep it simple. That's my opinion, but I must say I am biased because I don't trust Wasabi at all.

OP's concern is about his privacy from his Whirlpool coinjoin being ruined from consolidation:


With a WabiSabi coinjoin, he can privately consolidate his 20 UTXOs into one UTXO if he wants to (depending on their value), or he can split it into multiple coinjoin outputs in case he wants UTXOs of specific sizes.

Consolidation is a process where you get multiple inputs and produce one output. Are you sure this is what OP needs? Because I think he wants to maintain multiple UTXOs. Which is btw the best thing to do.

WabiSabi coinjoins allow you to consolidate inputs without revealing they are owned by the same person.  It's exactly what OP needs.

Why do you always suggest WabiSabi? OP clearly doesn't want to consolidate the inputs. I don't know how this wabisabi works but I think it is not what op wants

Why don't you save fees by privately consolidating your UTXOs in a WabiSabi coinjoin instead?

Yes, of course, but that assumes that his current set up is inadequate. If he is using a truly cold wallet, set up on a permanently airgapped machine, with a strong passphrase backed up separately, then that is already very secure and moving to a multi-sig provides only very marginal gains.

Well, with multi-sig back ups you should be backing up a subset of your other xpubs alongside each seed phrase, which makes it obvious it's a multi-sig back up.

Thanks for all the feedback. I think sending UTXOs one by one is the best option and swallow the fees.

LOL I absolutely agree with this..

Yeah I have seen this video and I have also seen another one where Andreas says that multisig is an overkill for everyday people.

In my opinion it all comes down to usability. I would go for a multisig wallet, for its ease of use, even if it is more difficult to setup and also easier to mess it up. I think I know my limits well enough to choose it. But, as you said, people go for multisig solutions only because of them being more secure, but, nothing is secure enough if you make stupid mistakes, right?!

I agree with most that you write, I just want to add some video of Andreas about multi-signature:

MultiSig is NOT the best option for most people to store their bitcoin [June 2023]

Also Multisignature transactions need more space and it waste more fees each time that you want to create a new transaction.

As experiment it is OK and its up to each person to use it or not, but i think that a single 12 word seed and 24 words bip39 seed have enough security always that you don't leak or mesh up your seed

albert0bsd had the same question. I believe OP wants to ameliorate his setup and I don't believe it is a bad idea. But since two members of this forum found this curious, I can't help but ask, why? I mean don't you think it is a good idea to move the coins to a better setup? Of course provided that the multisig vault will be properly set up. Fully airgapped, different devices, proper backups etc.

Yes! a properly set up singlesig wallet, where the seed phrase is produced from a permanently airgapped device, where the backups are stored offline in separate locations, where you add a strong passphrase that provides >128 bits of entropy is safe.

But, a multisig vault can have some advantages compared to the singlesig wallet:
1. In terms of safety, I reckon that both wallets are impossible to get compromised with brute-force.
2. In terms of theft, then the multisig vault is safer because the attacker will find one backup and they have no clue that you have set a multisig vault with another wallet. They will probably think of bruteforcing the passphrase though.
3. In terms of physical disaster, multisig and singlesig are equal if you have backed up the signers properly.
4. In terms of usage, signing a transaction with a multisig is much easier, because you can create a PSBT with the 1st cosigner and then sign with the rest of them, bringing the PSBT to the rest of the signers. However, with singlesig you need to get the passphrase where the device is, unless you remember it, but this is highly unlikely with a proper random passphrase.
5. In terms of fees, provided that we talk about the same amount of inputs and outputs, singlesig is cheaper.

Having said all that, I want to make clear that multisig creates a false sense of security. Multisig is in general safer, indeed, but you must know what you do and avoid obvious mistakes. Multisig is not a panacea.

Supposing that OP knows all the dangers and follows all the necessary measures, then, according to the list above, I think moving to a multisig is not a bad idea.

But if the only motivation is security, OP must know that a proper singlesig wallet with a strong random passphrase is safe enough.

In that case, you don't really have any option other than sending the UTXOs from one wallet to the other and paying the transaction fee each time.

Why do you want to move the coins to a multi-sig wallet? Is your offline wallet no longer secure? Is leaving the coins where they are not an option?

If you do still want to send them across, then you can either wait until fees are lower or just bite the bullet and pay the fees. You will have to spread the transactions out over a period of time so they are not obviously linked together. You could potentially consolidate two or three of the UTXOs together each time to save on fees if you are happy with the privacy implications of doing so.

This normally means that some utxos you want to spend are too small and they don't cover the fees. How many utxos  constitute the 20 dollars you mention? Are there any very small UTXOs?

 I don't know if you can do coin control and see the UTXOs in Trust Wallet. With a good wallet, you should and as youfriend said , use electrum. You will be able to send the "big" UTXO fully or reduce the fee as you said.

For a better explanation refer to this topic
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/trust-wallet-dust-utxo-error-5452328

I also have this utxo problem but probably yours is different from mine. Mine is trying to send BTC from trust wallet to another bitcoin wallet but  finding it difficult to send. it's showing"unable to transfer due to dust utxo error" and I have up to $20 in it. I contracted a friend he advised me to use electron wallet to inport my pass phrase and transfer to another wallet, by reducing the sat/vbyte. I did but I used blue wallet for the transaction but yet haven't reacieved the amount I sent. What is the possible cause Please?

Thanks for all the useful feedback. I should have been more specific with my original post.

The scenario is, funds were mixed using whirlpool and then sent back to offline wallet ("mix to external xpub"). The idea is to move those individual utxos to a multisig wallet.

Started out this way:

Singlesig (offline-wallet) --> whirlpool (hot-wallet) --> Singlesig (offline-wallet)

Question is what's the best strategy to now go to the desired end state:

Singlesig (offline-wallet) --> Multisig (offline-wallet)

You are absolutely right. I deleted my post, to avoid confusion. In that case, there is no better option than the one you mentioned above.

I'm not sure I follow you. From what OP has said, his outputs are already in Whirlpool:


Given that, and given he wants to move them from Whirlpool to another wallet, then the "mix to external xpub" option is the best option.

To move your Whirlpooled outputs directly to cold storage. Once I have a UTXO which has had 20+ free remixes and I don't intend to spend anytime soon, I gain very little by letting it sit on a hot wallet an accumulate even more free remixes. Using this method I can move this UTXO to a cold storage wallet, increase its security, and also redirect any free remixes to other UTXOs of the same size in that Whirlpool wallet instead.

The fees do not matter given my suggestion above. Whirlpool remixes are free. Mixing to an external xpub is also free, since it is the new entrants to each round which pay the fee. Mixing to an external wallet is exactly the same as just accumulating more free remixes from this point of view.

Ok, thanks for pointing this out, however I don't use Wasabi or anything related to it.

I am not going to criticise it here, we have done that a lot in other topics.

I don't ignore your suggestion, I am just focusing on the tools I know how they work and I know I can help.

So, you can create a helpful post for OP where you can give all the advice you want, using whatever tools you wish and I will do the same in a separate post for the tools that I know. I think it's better this way.


Perhaps it is not compromised but OP wants to ameliorate his set-up, moving to a multisig for example. OP can use both wallets, of course, but I don't think it is a bad process. Of course, if it is not compromised, I also suggest OP to wait for better fees.

Another thing is why you want to move to another wallet?

If there is not need to touch that balance, then is better to wait for low fees.. The only reason to move all to another wallet is if the current seed or hdkey was compromised somehow... (In this case privacy doesn't matter)

After all other member recommendations, i strongly recommend don't move it unless it was compromised

He can avoid this size restriction with a WabiSabi coinjoin, you can create outputs with arbitrary values.

It's easy enough to space out the process using Sparrow. You can simply enroll one UTXO now and wait for it to land in the new wallet, and then wait as long as you want before starting the process on the next UTXO. You don't have to enroll all your UTXOs in the process at the same time.

You can also freeze individual UTXOs in Sparrow which will pause their enrollment in free remixes for as long as you leave them frozen. Simply unfreeze them again and they will start to be remixed once again.

I agree with o_e_l_e_o.

The way I did it when I wanted to change was:

1. I sent some UTXOs separately in various times (1 utxo today, 1 two weeks later, 1 one minute later etc).
2. The rest of them I used o_e_l_e_o's process, it worked smoothly.

The only thing I don't like with this option (2) is that most of the coins will move from wallet A to B in in close moments of time.

If this doesn't bother you, then follow his advice. It is the best you can get.

You can use a WabiSabi coinjoin to spend your coins to your new wallet without revealing common input ownership.

The correct way to do this is via the "mix to external xpub" feature in either Samourai or Sparrow.

Here's a guide on how to do this with Sparrow: https://sparrowwallet.com/docs/mixing-whirlpool.html#mixing-to-cold-storage. Simply use the xpub of your cold storage wallet to create a watch only version in Sparrow, and then in your Whirlpool wallet select the "Mix to..." button and tell it to mix directly to that cold storage wallet. It will add at least 3 more mixes to each output first, and then mix those outputs directly in to your cold storage wallet at a random time after that. You will therefore not pay any fees (since the fees for each coinjoin are paid by the new entrants), and there will be no consolidation or privacy loss. To an outside observer, the transactions moving these coins from Whirlpool to the cold wallet will be indistinguishable from any other Whirlpool coinjoin.

Thanks for the ideas. I guess the best way to preserve the mixing benefits done earlier is to send them 1-by-1 at different time intervals.

Well if you can't move one by one then its someting difficult if you still want to preserver the privacy.

I may sugest to using some coinjoin transactions or some manually STONEWALL. I may sugested to use Samourai Wallet for that Operation, but it is up to you. In any case there is no way to do that without lose some privacy, you may try to group them in  groups of 3-4 Utxos:



The problem is that you will end with some repetitive TXID. That is a problem if you don't get new UTXOS to mix those

Hopefully someone can give me some ideas on how to best execute this. If you have a wallet with say >20 UTXOs that were previously mixed using Whirlpool (resulting in equal amounts), how can you best move then to another wallet. In this example, one wallet is single sig, whereas the target is mutlisig.

Sending them one by one is troublesome for two reasons.
a) fees for >20 transactions
b) timing the transactions so it's not obvious that they all moved at once

If they're all consolidated, you've just undone all the mixing previously.

I saw some privacy discussion here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/consolidating-utxos-in-wallets-5469997 so maybe @satscraper has some ideas?

Cheers