Yeah... but people won't "learn"... I mean, after Mt Gox everyone was like "I'll never store my coins on a centralised exchange again"... and then when all the exchanges started being "regulated" and enforcing KYC/AML and sanctions against restricted countries and starting locking accounts... everyone was like "I'll never store my coins on a centralised exchange again"... and look where we are now!

Nice find... I knew I had seen a thread like that years ago... but couldn't be bothered looking it up!


The "spesmilo" fork by the Electrum devs is probably a good start: https://electrumx-spesmilo.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

It still contains all the dead "Altcoin" code that was removed from ElectrumX

Sounds like it is coming along nicely... if you get a "stable-ish" release... let me know and I'll do some basic testing on it

If you follow those instructions exactly... you'll get hundreds of private keys as it includes all the "unused" ones (or what Armory thinks are unused if the wallet is not synced properly). If you've checked in Armory and know the exact addresses, you can also tick the "Address String" box and then find the specific private key(s) that you need.

Also note that you don't want to copy the "PrivBase58:" part when you are copying the private key(s)... you only want the 51 chars (starting with a "5") or the 52 chars (starting with an "K" or "L")

If you have any issues, let me know... and what wallet you're trying to import into to.

It'll be the way that the Windows "shell" is interpreting the characters... are you using cmd.exe/"command prompt" or powershell?

The format for using scantxoutset on the Windows command prompt seems to be:

Extract your keys, then import your keys into another wallet (like Electrum... or even Bitcoin Core seeing as how you have the node fully synced already).

You can follow my guide here for info on how to extract your keys: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4746784.msg43255691#msg43255691

It's to do with the "keypool"... the system used to maintain 100 keys in a "pool", modern versions of Bitcoin Core have a pool of 1000... so it does the generation all at once and fills the pool up. Once it runs out of available keys in the pool, it then regenerates another 1000 (or 100 for the older versions etc).

For older (non-hd) wallets... it's important to make regular backups, otherwise, you might be using addresses/keys that aren't actually backed up! (This is a non-issue for HD wallets).

Don't panic... addresses don't "expire" or become "non active" or anything... if you got the address from Electrum, then it's part of your wallet... if you can check that address on a block explorer and the transaction details show, then everything worked as expected.

Remember, wallets are simply a storage mechanism for private keys... they also provide a "window" to the blockchain information relating to transactions involving addresses/keys that your wallet contains. Just because your wallet is "offline" doesn't mean that your coins will disappear etc.

The issue you have is that the old version simply cannot connect to the network for reasons relating to the phishing attack that started at the end of 2018. As such, your wallet's "window" is closed and it can't "see" the latest blockchain data because it cannot connect to any servers and sync that data.

100% you will be able to see the new transaction and updated balance when you update to the latest version of Electrum.... BUT, please... follow Rath_'s advice! Only download from electrum.org and make sure your verify the installer!

Most likely you're going to need to purchase a new one... given that attempting to repair it will incur the cost of the replacement part (assuming you can even identify it and a supplier) plus the cost of the labour involved (unless you do it yourself... and you've already discovered how delicate these parts can be).

Honestly, at this point, given the cost of a Nano S, you're probably better off just buying a new device... unless you're something of an electronics repair tech

Right... so you've moved your funds from the "default" wallet on your HW, to one that is "hidden" behind a passphrase. Is that correct?


You've confirmed that the transaction has > 0 confirmations by looking at a blockexplorer


You tested your passphrase and you were able to see the funds.


Now, when you try to view it, none of it is showing...


As a side note, it probably isn't a great idea to use a short/easy passphrase... it kinda defeats the purpose and if your hardware wallet is a Trezor, could spell trouble if you device is physically stolen and someone retrieves the seed phrase. Bruteforcing the short/easy passphrase could be "trivial"


In any case, I agree with o_e_l_e_o... likely just a syncing issue... or you've just entered the wrong passphrase. Does it contain a mix of lower/uppercase and/or symbols? It's possible that you just mis-typed using SHIFT or CAPSLOCK when you originally set it up, if you were typing quickly.

As ranochigo noted, the differences based on the type of output you're creating a very minimal... almost to the point of being inconsequential in the grand scheme of things (unless you're paying fee rates in the 1000's of sats/byte )

The general rule of thumb is that (when considering the size of inputs):

native segwit < nested segwit < legacy


Of course, this only applies when the number of inputs being used to construct the transaction is the same... That is to say, the fact you're using native segwit inputs won't really matter if you're using 100 inputs


This tool is pretty simple: https://btc.network/estimate

You can set inputs/outputs and whether or not you're using SegWit... but it seems to be "ignoring" the slight differences in output type, so it doesn't show the differences for sending from one type to the other... which, as stated, are really quite insignificant. 3 bytes per output? for a standard transaction that's like ~2% on a 1 input/2 output SegWit transaction... and ~1% on a 1 in/2out legacy transaction.

It also, has some explanation on how it is calculating the transaction sizes... and the assumptions it is making when doing so.

"Be your own bank"

This also implies:
"Be your own bank's IT department"
- You need to make sure you have the correct "IT infrastructure and systems" in place to make Bitcoin work for you. That means making some smart decisions around Operating System, choosing a wallet application, whether you need/want paper wallets, hardware wallets, air-gapped cold storage etc.


"Be your own bank's CyberSecurity department"
- You need to be diligent around your computer systems. It is insanely easy to steal cryptocurrency compared with stealing from a bank. If someone gets a keylogger, clipboard jacker or other malware on to your PC/mobile device, they can literally steal your crypto in seconds! Be smart about what you do with your pc/mobile device... make backups!


"Be your own bank's Security department"
- Slightly different from the CyberSecurity department... you need to make sure your stuff is "physically" secure... your computer/hardware wallets/paper wallets... and of course, your backups! You have those right? Oh... wait


If you're trusting someone else to be your bank... maybe you'd be better off with an actual bank?

Are you saying you cancelled the database rescan? or you were cancelling trying to send the transaction?

Also, can you please post your latest logs.

And that error would be? We're not mind readers

Again... is your balance made up of lots of "tiny" amounts that you have received from faucets/mining/bounties/sig campaigns etc?

In Electrum, the remaining half just goes back to the single address that your wallet contains. In other wallets, sometimes they would automatically just generate a new random change address for you. This behaviour often led to the loss of funds from paper wallets if users were not aware of what the wallet was doing with regards to handling change.


https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse


Maybe try this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Change and this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Coin_analogy

mempool min fee automagically scales to try and hold the mempool below 300 Megabytes total... You can see what the current value is here: https://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/memory-pool as of the time of this post, it has just spiked up to near 3 sats/byte again.


Note that it is in sats/kb... so divide the value by 1000 for sats/byte.

Basically, by raising the mempool min fee, transactions below this value will (should?) be "dropped". Even if you find a node that will broadcast your transaction, propagation is likely to be poor as "default" nodes will ignore/reject it.

Like this: https://github.com/HardCorePawn/electrumBIP39
or the more complete version that validates the checksum: https://github.com/FarCanary/ElectrumSeedTester

The point is... the knowledge on how to go from Electrum seed phrase -> BIP32 seed -> Bitcoin Private Keys is not going to disappear unless the internet disappears... in which case, your bitcoin private keys are worthless anyway

Bitcoin Core is a hierarchical deterministic wallet and has been since v0.13

It just doesn't use BIP39 seed mnemonics as a backup mechanism for the seed that the wallet is constructed from... but internally, it still generates a seed and utilises BIP32 to generate private keys from that seed... just like other HD wallets

oops... I missed a ) in my code...    

Although, with that debug output, you might need to use:
As I'm fairly sure it needs to be an array and requires the [ ]'s

Curiosity gets the better of me here... do you have some examples of "kinda free" bitcoin debit cards? I actually had an acquaintance ask me about this the other day... and it's not something I've ever really looked into, as I figured the fees would like be horrendous.