Force-close is safe as long as your channel isn't outdated ( e.g. from old-oudated wallet file backup with non-static channel backup) It's been a long time since I forced-closed a channel but my latest test in testnet resulted in 144blocks ( approx. 1 day). After force-closing it, you'll not directly get the funds but a local transaction labeled " our_ctx_to_local" will be saved and will be automatically broadcast after the set locktime ( if the wallet is running). -snip- and I guess they've closed their end of lightning channels.
If they forced-closed it at their end, you should have received your part of the channel's funds to your 'On-chain' funds and the channel's status should change to " REDEEMED". Is there any new inbound transaction appeared when you opened your Electrum after being offline for a week? |
|
|
|
-snip-
Ok, but my goal was to be able to import a bech32 address, created in an offline node, in a different online node, so that I didn't need to go to the offline node every time I need something from that address. Yes, that's the goal. You have to get the address' descriptor from the offline node just one time. You can even make an HD watching-only wallet with this method ( but through the parent descriptors instead). Check this topic is you're interested: Bitcoin core create a watch only wallet and sign transactions offline [Tutorial] |
|
|
|
* When creating new requests, reuse addresses of expired requests
(fixes #7927). So the expires option will matter now! It was before. Based from the note " fixes #7927", the referenced issue states that it was only brought after v4.3.0. I also remember that I have a few old replies ( e.g.) to newbies that Electrum will reuse expired invoice's addresses. |
|
|
|
however I wonder if I can import an encrypted wallet to electrum.
Unfortunately, Electrum doesn't support BIP38 yet. And based from a tagged 'open' issue in its GitHub repository, it's in their low priority feature, link: github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/3786 |
|
|
|
Yes 2 Core on the same PC. But I have 2 users on it. Both of them are me, one user is like "for serious business", another one is like for "things other than work".
So these 2 Core belong to two different users and can run independently. Okay, that explains it. -snip-
So it doesn't want to launch properly just with the wallet.dat that "doesn't belong to it" :-)
Can one draw conclusion that this method doesn't work?
-snip-
UPDATE: It worked!!!! I'll write later how I did it!
But I was waiting over 2 hours until Core launches and start running. I didn't try to shut it down (because it takes so long time to launch), I was just waiting.
And it worked.
After it launched, the right wallet with right balance and history was shown. It just had to rescan the blockchain for the newly replaced wallet.dat, since the newer Bitcoin Core has " fresher" blockchain, it took a while to reach the tip. As a bonus, your old wallet.dat's balance appeared since its transactions are probably within the older blocks that the newer Core has. For comparison, rescan will take way more hours than that if your Bitcoin Core is fully synced. |
|
|
|
May be I don't need to download anything at all?
Because I have 2 Core on the old PC. And another one is version with dumpwallet.
I can use it this way:
1. back up wallet.dat of this newer Core.
2. replace it with copied wallet.dat of older Core.'
3. dumpwallet.
4. Replace wallet.dat with original one.
Two different Core versions in the same old PC? Without using the command line argument -datadir, those two should've used the same data directory thus, same wallet.dat file. Or did you already know how to use -datadir which separates the two Bitcoin Core? Anyways, that'll do, but make sure that Bitcoin Core isn't running while switching the wallet.dat files. |
|
|
|
Is it important to verify signatures on Core download anyway, even if it will never be launched online?
I left that so you can decide for yourself, since IMO it's not necessary for air-gap PC as long as the source is legit. But If I were to decide, I'd still verify the signature in the online PC where it's downloaded before transferring it to the air-gap PC. See, I also have contradicting answers ;D |
|
|
|
Probably upgrading Core is a more simple and convenient option. To backup wallet.dat first, then upgrade. I can download the new version installation file to new PC, then transfer it to the old PC where Core is located and upgrade offline.
Will it work this way? Yes, but if you do not want to touch your old datadir and old bitcoin installation ( for some reason) you don't even have to install over your old Bitcoin Core. Just install it somewhere else ( a different folder) and launch it with extra parameters to use different datadir with a copy of your wallet.dat file. Example process: - Install the latest version of Bitcoin Core to a different directory; e.g.: in "C:/Program Files/bitcoin-latest"
- Create your "other" bitcoin data directory in any folder and make a folder named "wallets" inside it; e.g.: in "C:/bitcoin_temp"
- Paste a copy of your wallet.dat inside that "wallets" folder (note: without the quotation marks), I'd suggest you to rename it into something else like old_wallet.dat
- Go to "bitcoin-latest" install directory and find Bitcoin-qt and create a shortcut (Right-click->Create shortcut)
- Open the created shortcut's Properties (Right-click->Properties) and add --datadir=C:/bitcoin_temp to the "Target"
- So Target should look like: "C:\Program Files\bitcoin-latest\bitcoin-qt.exe" --datadir=C:\bitcoin_copy
- Open Bitcoin Core using that shortcut and the wallet should be selectable in "File->Open wallet" menu.
- Then use dumpwallet.
Either this or use pywallet. |
|
|
|
I prefer not to upgrade the version.
Unfortunately, if your offline Bitcoin Core is lower than version v0.9.0, dumpwallet wont be available and there's no alternative command since it's added to do its job which the previous version do not have. The only way to export all of the private keys in one go without upgrading to an earlier version is to use third-party tools like pywallet. |
|
|
|
The paper wallet was generated at bitaddress.org. And oh how I regret encrypting it  The characters resembles the Base64 format, but the number of characters doesn't match. I tried the earliest release ( v2.8.1), the earliest tag ( v1.6) and the latest version ( web) of bitaddress and all don't output any 54-character string. |
|
|
|
-snip-
So, I presume I need to do this in the same node as the one where the addresses were created? Yes, getaddressinfo should be used to the node and wallet where the address belongs. Otherwise, it wont return with its descriptor. Additionally even if it's not from a descriptor wallet, it will return with a desc. Here's my test ( RegTest): [To see the wallet type] getwalletinfo -rpcwallet=miner_wallet getwalletinfo{
"walletname": "miner_wallet",
"walletversion": 10500,
"format": "bdb",
...
}
[Export an address' descriptor ( no private key)] getwalletinfo -rpcwallet=miner_wallet getaddressinfo bcrt1q45ylq9spcg0q5aqzjcfu9ndxqawj28trxylq85{
"address": "bcrt1q45ylq9spcg0q5aqzjcfu9ndxqawj28trxylq85",
"scriptPubKey": "0014ad09f01601c21e0a74029613c2cda6075d251d63",
"ismine": true,
"solvable": true,
"desc": "wpkh([057761c1/0'/0'/1019']02b11c7ade3d64dc2a7fbaf43af8a021cc23a834895d3c16fbb276961f40380467)#sdng4gmc",
"iswatchonly": false,
...
} |
|
|
|
Guys, here is my report:
All of them are in status "spent".
Except of those that are "Oops! We couldn't find what you are looking for."
This means that there is no stuck transaction to reverse, is that correct? Please just confirm for me to be 100% sure. As I am only 99 % sure without your confirmation :-)
-snip- Yes, it means that those inputs are already spent by other transactions. My best guess is it was spent by your other transactions, you can confirm it by checking all of the outbound transactions' input in Electrum: Right-click on an outbound transaction, select " View Transaction". In the advanced transaction details, look for the Inputs (n), the string of numbers/letters is the txid followed by the vin ( after the ":") ( see if any of them matched those "spent outputs") Btw, is blockchain.com a safe website to visit and click through?
No malware from it?
It's a legit site and " probably" wont add a malicious code to their website. ( most users do not recommend to use their wallet though) |
|
|
|
Questions:
1) How do I use "vout" numbers? The are 1 to 3 figures numbers.
2) There are a lot of "txid" located below "vin". Do I need all of them?
As I noted in the instructions, there can be more sets, that's if the transaction is spending more than one input. You can count the the number of inputs by finding how many txid and vouts sets ( "txid" followed by "vout" line) are there before the line " "vout": [" The " vout" tells which output is the one it's spending. For example, this transaction: blockchain.com/btc/tx/c41fac476e555483ed6672e99ddcc51ee3ab0028f8ace4d7369c1d0e32ecf948vout: 0 is bc1pcldgkx2an6fukvssqzkl6tzkll3sj6tcpn6wpxmc99nw8rtkwcws04nvas vout: 1 is bc1qam5vz2csj0h50qzsnqy3zmunrv0ud6j6m9szd7 If there's a third output, it's vout: 2; for the fourth vout: 3... and so forth. 1. Yes Elecrrum shows transaction history. But it slightly differs from the one in Core. May be one these reasons: one is: since Bitcoin Core where the keys are exported is offline, the displayed history isn't correct and what you see in Electrum is the updated/correct balance. another is: you might have missed some private keys. For some "txid" it works fine and shows info.
What does it mean and how should I handle the situation with those non-found "txid" ?
Nothing, as I noted in the instructions ( again) it's " non-existing, dropped, replaced, etc". For those that show info, check if the output that is yours is still unspent. |
|
|
|
1. Blockchain doesn't see this transaction.
2. Electrum doesn't see this transaction even after importing all of private keys.
3. It is only Core who can see this transaction. It is not synced though.
1 & 2 are expected due to the reasons that already given multiple times by multiple members. You should've said that Bitcoin Core isn't synced in the first place which should've narrowed-down the options. Imported all private keys into Electrum.
Over 1000 keys.
Unfortunately, nothing changed.
But can you see any transactions in Electrum's history tab? ( not the local transaction from Bitcoin Core). Anyways, if you want to check if that local transaction's input was already spent, just follow this: - Launch Bitcoin Core, go to 'Transactions' tab, find the local transaction, right-click on it and select "Copy raw transaction'.
- Open the "Console" (Window->Console) and type decoderawtransaction <space> <paste the copied raw transaction>, press enter.
- In the result, find ""vin": [" just below "locktime", copy the "txid" and "vout" below (not the one on top) which points to the specific input that the local transaction is trying to spend. (there can be two or more sets)
- Use any blockexplorer to check if that TXID is existing and if the output is already spent or not. If there are multiple outputs, refer to the 'vout' (ascending order: 0,1,2,3....)
- If it's spent, then that local transaction is now invalid; if not spent, then there's something wrong with your import to Electrum or something else.
If it doesn't exist: it only means that the local transaction is trying to spend an input that's non-existing, dropped, replaced or etc. In case it's not spent: You can refer to that output ( txid and vout) to know which private key to export from Bitcoin Core. Blockexplorers will show the address(es) among the transaction's outputs, then in Bitcoin Core simply use dumpprivkey <space> <address> to export its private key. |
|
|
|
I understood that the easiest option is "to abandon" transaction. May be it will work, may be it will not, but this one is simplest. So it is reasonable to try it first.
The transaction was sent from Core.
Now I moved to Electrum.
It's a " local transaction" that's only saved in your wallet and not backed-up by your private keys. Since it's from Bitcoin Core, you can only abandon it from Bitcoin Core. If you properly " moved" ( rather imported) the private keys to Electrum, the coins that you might regain from abandoning that transaction in Bitcoin Core should already be available in Electrum since it's only considered as spent by a local transaction in Bitcoin Core. The result will be the same if the funds were moved through " sweep" to Electrum instead. But if you " moved to Electrum" by sending your entire balance through a normal transaction, the local txn's " locked" coin(s) wasn't included to that transfer. If abandoning it doesn't return any balance, its input was already spent ( you can try to rescan to be sure). |
|
|
|
You can use either
- Replace by fee RBF
- Child pay for parents CPFP
If you can't see the money, the transaction might have Confirmed or you just need to resend/rebroadcast it
If he would use rebroadcast or rbf, it will be sent to the original receiver. Based on the second paragraph of OP, he doesn't want the transaction to be sent to the 'destination address'. @ Gorilla22 in case you're talking about Electrum, instead of " abandon transaction", Electrum has " remove" which will delete a local transaction. In both wallets' case, a local transaction is just saved in your wallet and not known by the Bitcoin network, but it affects your wallet's ability to spend the coins it intended to spend. You can regain that balance after abandoning/removing the local transaction but only if you still haven't spent the particular UTXO(s) that was used by the local txn. |
|
|
|
It was 5-7 years ago, and as much as I remember, it was still "stuck" several months after I sent it.
From which client? Based from your other posts, I'll assume that it's Bitcoin Core. If so, that " stuck transaction" may just be a locally saved transaction and you might have already spent its input. If not, you can easily abandon it since it must not be in any node's mempool by now. To " unstuck" it, just go to 'Transactions' tab and use " Right-click->Abandon transaction" and it will be dropped from your wallet.dat. After abandoning it, the funds that it " locked" should be useable again ( the transaction will have red texts). Of course, I'd advice you to create a backup of your wallet before trying those steps. |
|
|
|
-snip- some assume the reason to it decimal point of numbers as base on the software design capacity he used then while some give contrary opinion, what Satoshi did then was is base on the fact that he never expected the outcome to go global with adoption to this time or because it's part of his limitation to the extent to which bitcoin can go base on it finite supply? please i need the experience members to shed more light on this.
Check out this link to Bitcoin's old code ( Sep 7, 2010): /bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/41016bfc46b70aace013ffd29143a27bc7288e48/main.h#L19-L20Even back then, the " COIN" ( 1BTC in satoshi) is already the same as it is today: /bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/amount.h#L13-L16Your question seem to be greatly influenced by that Tweet ( the source in the OP): That was 2010, users at that time mostly send whole Bitcoin. Showing beyond two decimal value in the UI is just pointless. But since the author is talking about " no one expected" ( even satoshi), then he's just using it to for publicity since as you can see in the links above, Bitcoin from 2010 was already prepared for that fast paced adoption. |
|
|
|
Hi guys. I achieved entering the hard drive where the original wallet was created in 2017. Im trying to open the Electrum exe but when I put the password it tolds me: "Cannot create window for wallet: not enough values to unpack (expected 3, got 1)
You seem to have launched an old version of Electrum ( with this bug) and accidentally corrupted the wallet that it opened. Luckily, I think it's just your watching-only wallet since the issue shouldn't occur if it's the old wallet because it should has the same seed version. Now, before trying anything, backup your wallet file in case something went wrong. You can find the wallet in " wallets" folder inside Electrum's data directory ( wallet/datadir location) If that old drive is just mounted to another PC, search from that drive letter instead of C: Note: Your actual wallet isn't electrum.exe but a file inside Electrum's data directory. It's default name is " default_wallet" or " wallet_1", " wallet_2"... unless you've specified a specific name. Then, open a copy of the wallet backup using the new/latest version of Electrum ( not the old Electrum.exe from your old hard drive). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
