Old wallet support (Berkeley 4.8) #33273

1. 
   ellenkampguus commented at 6:27 am on September 1, 2025: none

   Please describe the feature you’d like to see added.

   Put back full support for Berkeley 4.8 wallets.

   Is your feature related to a problem, if so please describe it.

   Possible wallet corruption (when opening with other versions of Berkeley)

   Describe the solution you’d like

   Put back full support for Berkeley 4.8 (and other?) wallets.

   Describe any alternatives you’ve considered

   I heard there are conversion tools, but these would be difficult to use for people just wanting to run a node and keep their current (old) Bitcoin wallet.

   Please leave any additional context

   I can imagine the developer’s side of removing support for the old wallets using Berkeley 4.8. However, isn’t one of the things people holding Bitcoin want is hold it for a long time? I think it is important to make sure older wallets can just be opened in the default Bitcoin node and wallet software.

   This issue relates to “The Bitcoin Devs” not supporting “Bitcoin as it is supposed to be” according to the more purist Bitcoiners, as it seems Bitcoin Core developers seem to focus on ’nice development’ instead of ‘making the default Bitcoin node (and wallet) software.

   Anyhow, I think it is important to make sure older wallets can be just imported, instead of being ‘converted’ with some conversion tool, with all hassles and risks related to it. I also understand different Berkeley versions could corrupt wallets while doing downgrades and I think it is of major importance to avoid something .like that. Isn’t Bitcoin Core in the end important because of Bitcoin in wallets?

2. ellenkampguus added the label Feature on Sep 1, 2025
3. 
   achow101 commented at 6:39 am on September 1, 2025: member

   A migration tool will exist in Bitcoin Core for probably perpetuity. This tool is accessible on CLI with the migratewallet RPC and from the GUI with File > Migrate Wallet. When attempting to load a legacy wallet, users will be given specific error messages that inform them how to perform the migration.
4. achow101 closed this on Sep 1, 2025

   ---

5. 
   ellenkampguus commented at 2:30 pm on September 2, 2025: none

   I want to reopen the discussion as I am starting to doubt if Bitcoin Core is still catering to the Bitcoin user’s needs.
6. 
   pinheadmz commented at 2:34 pm on September 2, 2025: member

   What “user need” do you feel is not being addressed? Legacy wallets can be converted to the new improved format. This has been at least a five-year project
7. 
   jonatack commented at 9:32 pm on September 2, 2025: member

   IIUC @jonasschnelli expressed a similar concern in #20160 (comment).
8. 
   TheCharlatan commented at 9:45 pm on September 2, 2025: contributor

   IIUC @jonasschnelli expressed a similar concern in #20160 (comment).

   And the current code implements his suggested solution, so not sure this applies?

9. 
   jonatack commented at 10:13 pm on September 2, 2025: member

   @TheCharlatan

   Since the wallet files are precious data sources and could lead to stress when failing to load, I suggest to continue support for BDB wallets indefinitely.

   Edit: did you mean that this was implemented? “Support could also mean an automatic migration to sqlite with an internal dependency free converter”

   In any case, it is understandable that users may not want to mess with upgrading their wallets.

10. 
    maflcko commented at 6:37 am on September 3, 2025: member

    BDB has many known and unknown issues, so clinging to it when one is worried about wallet issues, seems backward? The backend hasn’t been maintained for years (decades?) upstream and many issues in Bitcoin Core weren’t fixed either, due to the planned removal.

    In any case, it is understandable that users may not want to mess with upgrading their wallets.

    I think it is beneficial to be cautious and deliberate around actions involving the wallet. For example, it can help to create backups to guard against hardware or software fault. Also, it can be helpful to understand what effects the migration has on the wallet, but all of this should be well documented. However, asking for full BDB support to be added back at this point will just bring back all the known and unknown issues and also comes with so much hassle and risk, that it is at best going to be sending the wrong signal to worried users.

11. 
    TheCharlatan commented at 6:55 am on September 3, 2025: contributor

    did you mean that this was implemented? “Support could also mean an automatic migration to sqlite with an internal dependency free converter”

    Yes.

Contributors
ellenkampguus achow101 pinheadmz jonatack TheCharlatan maflcko

Labels
Feature