a CPFP can be done by the receiver, but also by the sender IF there was change going back to his/her wallet.

For example, i have an unspent output funding 1MyAddress. I use this unspent output to fund 1ExchangeAddress and 1MyOwnChangeAddress.
Since i have the private key whose public key hash is equal to 1MyOwnChangeAddress, i can use the unspent output from the unconfirmed first transaction funding 1MyOwnChangeAddress in a new transaction with a fee equal to (the fee needed for the first tx) + (the fee needed for the second tx) - (the fee already payed by the first tx)

I still see them... A bug, or is Theymos modifying SMF?

It's not an opt-in rbf tx.... I already checked before i answered the op

This post addresses exactly the same issue as the other post you created => https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5284993.msg55470856#msg55470856

Please, keep it "1 problem, 1 post". If you start creating multiple posts for one problem, people will start helping you in both of them, duplicating our effort and contributing cluttering the forum.

You can lock this topic now...

Well, you say "high miner fee", but you payed 143 sat/byte while currently you'd need to pay ~250 sat/byte to get into the next couple of blocks.

Mempool is pretty filled up, people are outbidding eachother pushing the fees upwards...

214 sat/vbyte seems reasonable at this moment in time: https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,24h
There are ~3Mb of tx's that payed > 200 sats/byte
There are ~0.6Mb of tx's that payed >250 sats/byte

Your fee is somewhere in that range. IF the amount of new transactions per timeframe is lower than the amount of transactions getting into a block at the same timeframe, i can guesstimate your tx will get confirmed within "reasonable" timeframe.
However, the influx of transactions can be rather unpredictable, no way of telling for sure.

It seems like a 5% fee is on the high side, but remember: bitcoin does not care about fiat values... It cares about the size of the transaction, and the transaction size is determined by the type of wallet, the number of inputs and the number of outputs... It doesn't matter if each input has a fiat value of $1 or $1000.

Well, there are other options depending on your specific case:

• Did you opt-in RBF? In this case, your wallet will probably allow you to create an rbf tx (they call it "increase fee" or "bump fee")
• Was there change going back to your wallet? In this case you can do a CPFP
• You can pay a big pool to increase your tx's priority... ViaBTC is known to be a reliable partner for this
• You can double spend one of the unspent outputs used as an input for your tx, altough this method has only a small chance of succeeding
• If you wait about 2 weeks, most nodes will prune your unconfirmed tx from their mempool since this is the default maximum age of transactions... Some nodes do have different values tough, so after ~2 weeks your tx won't be completely gone, so it won't propagate completely. This way you can re-spend the same unspent outputs (the same as the previous option, but a bigger chance of success)
• You can rebroadcast your transaction every ~week so it stays in the mempool of the nodes, eventually the mempool size will decrease and your tx will get confirmed (actually the oposite of the above 2 options)
• There are some free accelerators aswell... Antpool allows you to increase your tx's priority a very little bit, but if you grossly underpayed this will not really help you all that much. ViaBTC accepts 100 tx's/hour for free, but you need a minimum fee of 10 sat/byte to qualify AND you have to be really fast to get one of the first 100 spots

Don't pay random people to "mine" your transactions. This is impossible. Only a big pool that solves at least a couple of blocks a day has any chance of making such a promise. Scammers prey on people that have stuck transactions tough.

Short answer: you probably can't...
Unless you own enough asic's to controll 1% or 2% of the total network's hashrate so you'll have a decent chance of solving at least one block/day, you'll have to join a pool instead of solo mining (at least in order to accelerate transactions... You can solo mine when you have less hashrate, but the odds of solving a block in a decent timeframe would drop, making your acceleration worthless). When you join a pool, it's the pool operator that can increase a transaction's priority not you.

you can set parameters both for the size and the maximum age of unconfirmed transactions in your mempool...

in your bitcoin.conf:
maxmempool=
in Mb, default 300 Mb

mempoolexpiry=
in Hours, default 336 hours

I don't think there's any limit other than the total memory size (+ swap), there are default values tough...

I start mine using a service, but the service does not execute either of these bash scripts:

/usr/bin/dotnet run --no-launch-profile --no-build -c Release -p "/[~]/btcpayserver/BTCPayServer/BTCPayServer.csproj" -- $@


I've stopped my service and ran above command in the shell so i could capture the output:


EDIT: i suddenly remember why i start btcpayserver with these parameters
if you cat run.sh you'll see the following:


So, i basically opened run.sh, copyd the command into a service file and ran it from there...

Could you try starting btcpayserver with the command i posted above (change the path to the correct one instead)

Well, i already explained this in my previous (lenghty) post. But since it's tl;dr; => because odds are pretty big there are other, unknown or undisclosed vulnerability's. But most hardware wallet vulnerability's require physical acces. So, it's a good idear not to give anybody physical access to your hardware wallet, hence, buy a new one instead of a second hand one.

Well, it's like saying you don't open unknown documents from the internet because new, unknown virusses get created every day... It's not because your virusscanner is up-to-date that you're protected completely. The fact that CIH exists proves that virusses exist, so it can be used as a cautionary tale. Same as the article from 2018: sure this vulnerability is fixed, but the article is proof that vulnerability's DO exist, so it's a good idear to take into account that other, new, vulnerability's might exist aswell.

Bitcoin is about freedom. If the OP decides to take the risk, nobody is going to stop him, and there's a decent chance he won't face any problems...

Because a new one is cheap, and it's much safer. Bitcoin is money. If you're going to neglect opsec, you might aswell use a desktop wallet. Much cheaper... And if you verify the signature and keep your pc sparkling clean it's also "reasonably" secure



Well, the car analogy only works up untill a certain point:

• A second hands car costs about 20% of a new one (at least, it does in my country). A new hardware wallet costs 40€, i doubt the OP will find a second hand wallet for 8€. In absolute number it's even better: buying a second hand car saves you >10.000€ (in my country). Buying a second hand HW wallet saves you 10€
• The risk you run is also different. HW wallets can be used to store hundreds of bitcoin, with a fiat value of millions of dollars... If your second hand car's engine breaks, you're out of 500 or 1000 dollars... A completely different pricerange
• It's harder to see with the naked eye if somebody messed with your hardware wallet's firmware than it is to see if somebody messed with your car
• When buying a car, the seller has to give his full KYC (at least, in my country). Buying something online does not have the KYC prereq. Hence, if you buy a bad car, you can track down the seller more easily
• If your car is faulty, you can go to the police to file a claim. You can do the same with your hardware wallet being compromised. However, cops will probably relate to you and actually understand the fact you were scammed after filing a complaint for a bad car. When you file a complaint about the firmware on a ledger device being altered, they'll probably scratch their heads and classify your case as a cold case without even trying

I'll give you another real life analogy that comes closer to buying a second hand wallet:
One day you decide to open an ATM. Your ATM will be located in the bad part of town and the store where you'll place your ATM machine does not have camera's. You will load your ATM with 1.000.000€ in unmarked, untraceable bills.

• A new ATM costs 10.000€, it comes straight from the factory, has a 3 year guarantee period, the latest firmware and the latest updates in security technology.
• Some guy you don't know approaches you on the street and says he sells his second hand ATM for "only" 8.000€. You don't know if he modified the firmware or succeeded in copying the key to open the machine tough... Oh yeah, it's heavily scratched aswell

Which one will you buy? Will you store 1.000.000 of your money in a second hand piece of metal because no locksmith would ever copy ATM keys and because your ATM validates it's firmware before starting, or will you spend 2.000€ more for a brand new machine?

I realise this whole topic makes me look like a hardware wallet critic. This couldn't be further from the truth! Hardware wallets are great. Hardware wallets, airgapped wallets and properly generated paper wallets are about the safest way to store your funds... But i'm talking about new, trusted, hardware wallets bought from an official vendor

If you're not in a hurry, i'd just leave it. Binance (as most other exchanges) create a unique deposit address for you.. It doesn't matter if you fund it today or next month, so you can just wait it out (unless you're in a hurry exchanging btc to fiat, but there's no "technical" need to speed up the confirmation time).

As for increasing the fee (creating an rbf): i couldn't find any info about them accepting rbf tx's using a quick google search, but i'd be seriously supprised if they'd fail to recognize your funding transaction if you created an rbf transaction... They're one of the biggest exchanges, and they're pretty up-to-date, so i don't think they'd give you troubles if you'd increase the fee... If you want to be 100% sure, i'd either wait untill somebody who actively trades on binance sees this thread and confirms my response, or i'd open a support ticket with binance and see if they're ok if you create an rbf tx.

Well, it means that the fee you used places your tx in the top 10 Mb of the mempool. This sounds ok, but in reality it's not. It means that a lot of other transactions payed a higher fee than you did, and you'll have to wait untill those transactions ended up in a block (or were pruned). While waiting for this to happen, newer transaction with a higher fee/vbyte might be broadcasted, pushing you down even further.
Wether or not the fee is to low depends on your usecase.... If you transfer funds to a friend, this fee would be perfectly fine as long as your friend doesn't need his money straight away. If you transferred funds to a shop using a payment gateway, odds are your order will be cancelled after your transaction stays unconfirmed for x minutes/hours, in this case you might be in "trouble".

The "increase fee"-option generates a rbf transaction. If you were sending to a trustworthy thirth party this might do the trick... However, some older services do not recognize rbf transactions, so use with caution.

The bottom line: it'll take at least ~10 blocks * 10 minutes (on average)  before you have any chance of getting your transaction confirmed, and that is if nobody broadcasts transactions with a higher fee in this time window. There's a very small chance it'll get confirmed sooner, but i wouldn't hold my breath. If you payed a shop and they have given you a specific time window in which your tx need to be confirmed: contact them.
If you're paying some automatically generated invoice (a shop, an exchange,...) and you want to do an rbf (increase fee): read their FAQ first, if nothing is mentioned about "bump fee", "increase fee" or "rbf": contact them first...

There IS some knowledge in the community about which payment gateways have timeouts, which gateways do automatic refunds, which gateways accept rbf tx's, but if you want more specific info, i'm afraid you'll have to tell us more about your specific case (if this doesn't hurt your privacy)

If you do nothing at all, your funds will never move after you die. In reality, you're actually taking those unspent outputs out of circulation forever, so you'll be responsible for a tiny increase in bitcoin price... Less supply + equal demand should increase the price

In my case: I have one daughter. She knows where to find my hardware wallets, she knows the pincode and i've taught her the basics. After I die, she'll be able to spend everything I held my whole life. I tried to make things as simple as possible for her: no hidden messages, no extra encryption, no ssss, just a hardware wallet and the proper gui... Making her jump over hurdles will only decrease the odds she'll actually be able to spend my funds, and i'd rather have her rob me wile i'm still alive than increase the odds she won't be able to spend my holdings after i die.

It should check the firmware, yes... But, once again: does it really matter if the issue in the blogpost i shared is fixed? The point is: there are attack vectors that have been exploited in the past, and there is no guarantee there are no other existing vulnerability's that are yet unknow (or worse: undisclosed), so my advice would be: better safe than sorry.

My work pc is running windows (a company policy, i don't like it, but i have nothing to say in the matter). Once a month a gazzilion fixes get pushed to my pc automatically on the first day of the month together with the new virus defenitions. Is it a good idear to assume my pc is completely safe on the second day of the month since all known vulnerabilty's have been patched a day before and all virusses should be stopped? Is it OK to start saving all my private keys in plain text on this machine while surfing to unknown sites and installing whatever software i come across? No, offcourse not... Why? Well, I'm 99,99% sure NEW vulnerability's will be found, NEW virusses will be written and UNDISCLOSED vulnerability's are still there ready to be exploited.

Same goes for my hardware wallet: sure, the vulnerability's that were found in the past have been mitigated. Either by better opsec, by checks performed by the wallet software, by changes to the firmware,... But it's not like i'm 100% sure no OTHER vulnerabilty's still exist. What i DO know is that a lot of those vulnerability's required physical access to the hardware wallet, either before it was shipped to the customer, or after it was initialised. Is it such a dumb idear to make sure as little hands touch my devices as humanly possible?
You could be loading a hardware wallet with tens of BTC at a time. We all hope BTC will go to the moon... It's perfectly possible the 10 BTC on your wallet now are worth $1.000.000 in a couple of years. Are you really going to take any extra risk by buying this wallet second hand? Maybe it's a complete fake, maybe somebody tampered with the RNG, maybe somebody found a way to load fake firmware without being detected, maybe it's genuine but the firmware is so old you're at risk when initialising, maybe it's pre-initialised and you forget to wipe it,...


In this case, you keep presenting these arguments
1) the price: C'mon, you're buying a hardware wallet... Decent wallets go for as low as 40€ or less... How much are you going to pay for a used one... 10€ less, 20€ less? Are you really going to risk your holding for 10€ or 20€?

2) there are no black fridays in your country: nor are there in mine... Well, the last couple of years shops start to get on this hype-train, but 4 or 5 years ago they didn't exist. I bought my first black friday promo many, many years ago, because these promotions are global

3) You don't use €: I've presented the price in euro because ledger is a French company. They use Euro's. But you can pay in Bitcoin... I use the €, i buy stuff from china all the time but i haven't touched a Yen (ever) nor do i have a Yen account. I've bought stuff from the US, and i don't have an US bank account (i do have some dollar bills laying around from my last trip to America 20 years ago). I've even bought a new spring for my baikal air rifle straight from russia, but i wouldn't know how a ruble looks like.

4) The question is to find out if the risks could be eliminated: No, not 100%, never 100%. If you buy a hardware wallet from an unknow person, my gut feeling tells me you're 98% safe if you follow all precautions. If you buy a new one, my gut tells me you're 99,9% safe. I've been around for a while, my gut usually makes good decissions. It's up to you if you agree with me or not. And if you agree it's up to you to decide if 98% certainty is good enough or nor. It isn't for me, but i'm a different person than you are.

5) You say because of covid you cannot buy one: Why? Ledger is still shipping, Amazon isn't closing down... If I buy something it still gets delivered... Are you living in a country where all post and delivery services no longer work because of covid? In that case, you might be right...
The only "real" excuse for not being able to buy a HW wallet is living in a country where crypto is illegal IMHO.

Does it really matter how old the article is? Sure, there aren't any recent, disclosed vulnerabilitys that aren't patched, but that doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if this particular one is "fixed" easily
What matters is that both ledger and Trezor have had vulnerabilitys that were exploitable after a malicious actor has had physical access to a hardware wallet.
Are you sure all vulnerabilitys are fixed? I am not... Hence I will not buy a hardware wallet to which a potential malicious person could have had access.

But bitcoin is about freedom. If you want to risk all your holdings by cheaping out of 40 Euro's, be my guest. I will not however.

I knew it had happened before, a quick Google search turned up this: https://qz.com/1233401/a-teen-hacker-exposed-a-security-hole-in-ledgers-hardware-wallets/

I've never seen this problem TBH (with this problem, i mean: not being able to check said checkbox)... I do know that electrum does things like detecting if tor proxy is running and adding/removing menu items based on this check... I have no idear if there's a check that disables checkboxes for automatic server selection...

If you cannot check this box, i guess it's either because a check failed (maybe a firewalling issue?), or because of a bug... I guess you could try to enter an electrum node manually, here's a screenshot of the list of available nodes:



you can always try to reinstall, or enter a different electrum node, but i'm afraid there's an underlying problem here... If you can't get it solved on your pc, maybe it's a good idear to open an issue on git, and in the meantime use a different device to restore your wallet to?

Ok, so we're working with a desktop wallet
First things first: I assume you don't see a green dot at the right bottom corner of electrum's gui?


ps: yeah, i know, i run version 4.03, i have to upgrade to 4.04, it's just the first time i opened electrum since the upgrade became available...

Can you click the button in the right bottom corner and tell us if "select server automatically" is checked? Also, open the tab "proxy" and tell us if the checkbox "use proxy" is unchecked?

Reinstalling might work, in the sense that completely removing electrum (including the hidden folders that don't get removed automatically) and reinstalling it might clear any "wrong" configuration. But you might aswell try to figure out why you're not connected in the first place. By the way, never throw away your wallet files if you completely remove electrum's hidden folders, just move them to a safe place instead.

Did you check the pgp signature after you downloaded electrum?

EDIT, an aftertought: do you have any other devices laying around? A second laptop or an android phone? If your wallet wasn't funded with to much, you could try to install electrum's android app and restore it with the same seedphrase...

I couldn't agree more... I didn't think about altcoins for a moment
Theoretically, you should be able to create a proper paper wallet for your altcoins aswell, but i have to agree that it would be really confusing if you'd have to print several paper wallets for a couple dozen altcoins.

I'd never store funds for a long time on any desktop/mobile wallet, but even if i did, coinomi would defenatly not be in my top-10 of wallets . I've been around when they completely trashed one of their users after he lost his lifesavings when using coinomi (at least, that was his claim). They still put all the blame on him, but to tell you the truth, i wouldn't trust a company that resorted to victim-blaming even if it was the vicim's own fault, and i'm still not 100% sure that it wasn't coinomi's bug that caused him to lose all his money.