It may worth mentioning that both those tutorials are made for local use (server and Electrum on same computer).
So for accessing it from mobile that may need a little more configuration.
Yes. Thanks! For the time being, I want to configure Electrum Server and I will see how I 'll connect my android later! @NeuroticFish made a complete guide on how to install the Electrum server on Windows. There is two option, you can use Electrs or Fulcrum. So... one major advantage of Fulcrum comes on Windows: the user can just get compiled binaries for Bitcoin Core, Fulcrum and Electrum, configure and run them all, without the need of stepping into Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL). Another good thing is it's performance: it's processing the requests significantly faster than Electrs. Just in my experience (HDD, infrequent use for rather short tasks) Fulcrum gets in the state I can access it significantly slower than Electrs.
But, tbh, I don't like Fulcrum as much as the other option I have (Electrs)
* Fulcrum is made by somebody with BCH ties and it may be much better optimized for BCH (to say the least)
* As I said, Fulcrum starts/syncs slower than Electrs and that's not OK for my use case
For further information, just go around on the threads: Electrum server on Windows: FulcrumBitcoin + Electrum server + Block explorer under Windows (with WSL and Debian)Thanks! That's exactly what I needed. |
|
|
|
|
Necessity: I want to connect my wallet softwares to my node. I use BlueWallet (mobile) & Sparrow (desktop).
Problem: I am running Bitcoin Core and it works perfectly fine. However, I want to connect BlueWallet to it, but it needs Electrum Server. But, I use Windows and Electrs seems difficult to set up on windows.
Solution needed: I need you to guide me to run electrum server on my windows machine please.
I am pretty sure, that it must have been asked before in this forum. If so, please feel free to close this thread as duplicate and guide me to the older post. I haven't been able to find any older posts however.
|
|
|
|
I actually don't care about this because for me btc price will always fluctuate for various reasons. But when I look at this, maybe a bit worried, I don't know how many people in 10 years ago still own a lot of Bitcoin until today and sell it at the same time. So What you're though?. why are they selling it now, and not on ATH acouple years ago?.
Just because someone decided to move their bitcoins doesn't automatically mean that they plan to sell it, and even if they indeed decided to sell now, I see no problem with it. You are not the only one worried though with recent moves as I've seen some ridicolous theories on Twitter earlier today like "someone managed to generate private keys so that's why those old bitcoins are moving" lol. What does "someone managed to generate private keys mean"?  |
|
|
|
You could back-up a simple singlesig wallet with a passphrase and maintain 3 vaults and split the backup as follows: It's possible, but there are two big weaknesses to your proposal over a multi-sig one. Firstly, you are accepting far reduced security. If someone steals one share of your multi-sig, then they would still have a hurdle of 2 128 to overcome to brute force another share. In your system, if someone finds Vault 1 your security is reduced to 2 62 bits, and if they find Vault 2 your security is reduced to 2 66 bits (the difference being that 4 bits from word 12 are checksum). If someone steals Vault 3, then your security could be anything at all, depending on your passphrase. Unfortunately, few people choose strong and random passphrases, and instead pick passphrases like they pick passwords - short, predictable, and easily brute forced. You could potentially be down to a very low amount of security. Secondly, you introduce a single point of failure. To spend from such a wallet, you need to bring the seed phrase and a passphrase together on a single device. If that device is compromised, then you lose everything. With multi-sig, your seed phrases can stay on separate devices, therefore protecting you against this vulnerability. Obviously most people use single sig wallets perfectly safely, but if you are looking for the best security for long term cold storage or similar, then multi-sig remains the better choice here. I absolutely agree with you in everything. My system is much worse than multisig, as I have mentioned above. However, don't you agree that instead of doing something wrong, trying to create a multisig vault, it would be better to go for singlesig+passphrase? I strongly believe that people must be very well educated before creating multisig vaults. |
|
|
|
In case someone gets one of my packets, they wouldn't be able to steal my money, but they would be able to monitor my transactions. I know that's not the best approach, but I can live with it! There is a simple way around this. For any m-of- n multi-sig, then you only need to back up n minus m number of xpubs alongside each seed phrase (provided you pick the correct ones) and still have full redundancy and yet also protect your privacy. For example, using your 2-of-3 system, then you back up 3-2 = 1 xpub alongside each seed phrase, and your 3 back ups would look like this: Back up 1: Seed A, xpub B Back up 2: Seed B, xpub C Back up 3: Seed C, xpub A As you can see, the compromise of any one back up is insufficient for an attacker to spy on your wallet, while you still only need to recover any 2 back ups to have all the information needed to restore your wallet. Actually you were the one who taught me this system. So I owe you many thanks! In general, let's conclude that there is no point having a n-of-m system, where many of your keys are stored online. Ideally, you want none of them to be online. Finally, let me give you an alternative, which I think is still better than your current system.
I keep suggesting people to create a fully offline wallet and add a passphrase. This is more than enough, unless of course you want to learn better practices, which is of course advisable, but not necessary. You could back-up a simple singlesig wallet with a passphrase and maintain 3 vaults and split the backup as follows: vault1: words 1-6 + passphrase vault2: words 7-12 + passphrase vault3: words 1-12 In this case, losing one of the vaults wouldn't lead to losing your money. Only 2 of the backups are required to sign a transaction. What you gain with this system is that you wouldn't have to trust your memory at all. You have everything backed-up, even the passphrase. |
|
|
|
Hi
My 2-of-3 vault I'm trying to set consists of:
- a Desktop electrum at one house
- a Trezor at another house
- a Mobile phone electrum (most of the time on me)
So, that's already quite an organization when you want to send some BTC from this 2-of-3 multisig.
But each of them has by default: a passphrase (or a PIN for the Trezor), a words seed. So, you multiply by 3 the cumbersomeness of this configuration.
Can I spare myself all of those? What do you think?
Thanks!
Hello! Are the desktop and the mobile phone connected to the internet? EDIT:I just read the previous post by o_e_l_e_o. That's exactly my point. Your multisig configuration is not great. Instead what I have done may give you an idea. I have a signing device, which I have used to create 3 wallets. I backed-up the seed phrases and I used my signing device in order to create 3 corresponding QR codes that would help me retrieve the private keys. Essentially, the QR code and the seed phrase do the exact same thing, as they help me "recover" my wallet. Finally I have a backup of my 3 extended public keys. This is a crucial step! During this process I have not been exposed to the internet at any time. Then I have loaded my public keys in my BlueWallet app in order to be able to monitor my multisig vault and to produce addresses and send them to anyone who want to pay me. So, for each wallet I have:1 QR code 1 seed phrase 3 extended public keys -> here you can do some tricks and not save all the public keys together for privacy reasons. In case someone gets one of my packets, they wouldn't be able to steal my money, but they would be able to monitor my transactions. I know that's not the best approach, but I can live with it! I know the alternatives but for some reason I didn't feel comfortable to follow them and since we talk about money, I preferred to live with this drawback. Therefore, I have created 3 packets (one for each wallet). I have distributed them to 3 different places. Of course, I have tested that I was able to sign transactions with any 2 of my 3 wallets! An important thing here is that you should delete the vault from BlueWallet every time you repeat the experiment, in order for you to get familiar with importing the extended public keys as well. |
|
|
|
To force bitcoind to use only Tor I've the following in my bitcoin.conf file: listenonion=1
onlynet=onion And bitcoin-cli -netinfo yields only incoming and outgoing connections via Tor onion addresses. If you need inbound connections, add -listen=1 command line option or follow the suggestion above, in your "bitcoin.conf" file.
You'll need it since -proxy disabled listen.
Take note that onlynet=onion will prevent you from connecting to nodes on clearnet.
Have you tried in bitnodes if your node is reachable?
If it is now, you'll eventually get inbound connections after a while.
Thank you both! I have added -listen=1 option. I haven't added the onlynet=onion option because I want to receive and send all kind of connections. However, it looks like I still don't get incoming transactions. BUT in bitnodes it looks like my onion address is discoverable. ----EDIT----
I am so happy! Thank you! Look: Bitcoin Core v22.0.0 - 70016/Satoshi:22.0.0/
ipv4 ipv6 onion total block
in 0 0 4 4
out 10 0 0 10 2
total 10 0 4 14
Local addresses
<my onion address>.onion port 8333 score 5
|
|
|
|
At the moment my -netinfo is as follows: Bitcoin Core v22.0.0 - 70016/Satoshi:22.0.0/
ipv4 ipv6 onion total block
in 0 0 0 0
out 9 1 0 10 2
total 9 1 0 10
Local addresses
<my onion address> port 8333 score 4
I have run bitcoin core using: .\bitcoind.exe -datadir=<bitcoin core path> -externalip=<my onion address> -proxy="127.0.0.1:9050" -debug="tor" Tor is running as a service on my system. |
|
|
|
is remembering 12 words that hard?
But what if, you have 1,000 Bitcoins in your wallet, and you forget one word, JUST ONE WORD, and you have no copies of your seed phrase anywhere because "remembering 12 word is not that hard". You'll definitely know the true meaning of manual brute-forcing. Hahaha.  OP, have both physical copies, and digital copies. Put the physical copy in a tightly sealed pack, and store it under lock+key in a safe. Encrypt the digital copy in a USB Drive and place it in nested directories, with each layer encrypted, and with different passwords. If it's the last word, you are lucky, because it derives from the previous 11 haha! It's a joke, I totally agree that we should never rely on our memory! Our brain is extremely vulnerable. |
|
|
|
So far I have never used Wallet Sparrow, but after you discussed this, I think I need to try to learn Wallet Sparrow as well as do a trial run.
Sparrow is a very good wallet. I am still learning its features. There are many conveniences that we can get from Blue Wallet, but what you need to know is that Blue Wallet will immediately close its LN node service until the end of this month. If their LN node service shuts down, Blue Wallet will look like any other open source Bitcoin wallet. Despite that, I personally am very comfortable with Blue Wallet on android. Oh yeah. Don't forget to replace a newer laptop when you have enough money to buy it so it's easier to work  I am also using bluewallet on android. I use it to "monitor" my wallets and to send transactions using my airgapped signing device. Perhaps I can buy a webcam. For the time being, as long as I can do all my transactions using BlueWallet, I am ok! |
|
|
|
Hello! I am running bitcoind using my terminal. I am on a windows machine. When I run I get the following response: ipv4 ipv6 onion total block
in 0 0 0 0
out 8 2 0 10 2
total 8 2 0 10
I know that in order to get incoming connections I need to do portforwarding and allow connections on my firewall. So, let me say in advance that I can't do this!Could you help me allow anonymous connections? I suppose that in this manner, I won't have to care about port forwarding. Thanks in advance! |
|
|
|
Hello! does anybody know if BlueWallet offers timelocked transactions?
I am not certain about this, but I do not think so. If you want use timekock, I have seen it on Electrum while making transaction, but only on desktop Electrum. Or use https://coinb.in/#newTimeLocked. Thank you! I have used timelocked transactions yesterday using Sparrow. Actually it was only yesterday when I learned about them and I needed to try it out. I was interested in BlueWallet since I use cold storage and my signing device really struggles with scanning the QR code from Sparrow and vice-versa. My laptop's camera is not so good. |
|
|
|
|
Hello! does anybody know if BlueWallet offers timelocked transactions?
|
|
|
|
Sorry, that's not my area of expertise, so I can't check the code. Alright, however randomness is a very fascinating subject in my opinion. Sometimes I wonder what is truly random. |
|
|
|
Unless you made a mistake somewhere, and the random isn't as random as you think.
If you have the technical knowledge, feel free to check it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5432897.0 although I have deleted the repository. "Vampobit" was my original account here, but for personal reasons, I don't want to be "vampobit" anymore. I may still have access to it though. As far as randomness is concerned, I have decided to follow a very simple approach. I roll a dice 256 times and if it's 4-6 I sign it as 1, else I sign it as 0. Then I have my entropy like 100010101.... Of course Having a dedicated system for offline signing is easier than getting one each time you need it. And if you have said system already, it's easy to import a paper wallet when you need it. I like to use a wide variety of wallets, depending on my needs at the moment. Sure! I have a 2-of-3 multisig and a singlesig with passphrase personally. But I totally agree with you. EDIT: I still have the code on my PC. If you 're interested, I could re-create a repository for you to check it. |
|
|
|
I strongly advise you not to use paper wallets. Paper wallets are fine, as long as you know what you're doing. That includes knowing that almost all websites that offer paper wallets will scam you. Even when you use them offline, they can produce a compromised private key if the source is compromised. I have written a program in Java which creates old-school paper wallets. Therefore I am almost certain of the source code's validity. However, I believe it is much easier to use an airgapped device for signing transactions. Paper wallets are fine, as you said. I think though that nowadays, it's better to use more modern approaches. Anyway! |
|
|
|
Do you think there may be a way to broadcast a transaction automatically though? Generally speaking. There may be, but it's not worth the time and the potential drawbacks. You should rely on your daughter to do this individually, and not to some third party or local computer. Also, I'd teach her some security basics before handing over anything. Unless she practices software engineering and knows from malicious factors, I'd tell her how to setup an air-gapped computer (or give her hardware wallet instructions for the sake of simplicity), tell her a few obvious things about Bitcoin wallets etc. It'd really be a pity to lose much money, and I'd be responsible for that. Yes I agree! I don't have a daughter actually. I was simply inspired by the OP's thread and it got me very interested, that's why I asked. |
|
|
|
No, I don't think he meant that. You can broadcast the signed transaction individually. You make it, set a certain block height as the requirement, sign it, and once the height is such, it can be broadcasted and mined. All this time, the signed transaction can be kept somewhere safely.
Yeah most probably he/she meant what you said. Do you think there may be a way to broadcast a transaction automatically though? Generally speaking. Obviously! I did it both in testnet and with real money however  Great post btw, I will check it. |
|
|
|
However, who was going to broadcast the transaction in case I died before the block height 786243 was reached? The person receiving the coins. This is why I said above that after you have created the timelocked transaction, you should give a copy to your heir for safe keeping. This is so they can broadcast it after the timelock has expired. You can also keep a copy yourself, such as in a safe at home or a safe deposit box at a bank or somewhere else your heir will gain access to after you die. If you are still alive, then before the timelock expires you move one of the inputs in the timelocked transaction to a new address, therefore rendering the timelocked transaction invalid and unable to be used. You then create a new timelocked transaction and give this to your heir. Rinse and repeat. So is there an automatic broadcast option? It doesn't really make sense to be able to set it up automatically, considering the technical aspects behind it. I will try to manually cancel a timelocked transaction following the process you mentioned. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
