The last 4 characters are checksums. The actual 16 bytes of data per line are encoded in the first 8 "words". You can write gibberish for the last 4 characters if you want. Armory will complain the checksums are invalid and will ask you to explicitly check the proposed wallet id with the one written on your backup. If the two match, you're all good.
I have tried restoring a dummy wallet using random characters for the last 4... and I get an error:  This happens if I use blanks, or just random like aaaa... or just repeat one of the other 4 letter groups... it seems it'll only work if I get at least the first 2 letters of the checksum correct, then the last 2 can be anything.  |
|
|
|
Man... I miss my old Palm devices... had a couple back in the early 2000s, had a camera attachment for one as I recall... ran my entire life on Palms for a couple of years  ... they were awesome, but it was a pain carrying Two devices (PDA + Phone)... then I got my first smart phone (a Sony Ericsson P900) and never looked back  Theoretically it should be possible to create a wallet on PalmOS... the difficulties will be: 1. Whether or not any of the required algorithms/libraries have been created for PalmOS or whether you will need to implement these yourself (ie. ECDSA, AES256, RIPEMD160 etc) 2. Getting hold of the hardware to test with 3. The hardware still being usable (as I recall they didn't have great battery life when "fresh", nevermind 20 years later ) For the software development, google is probably going to be your friend in this instance... I'm sure there will still be repositories of PalmOS development guides floating about. For the hardware, maybe ebay? |
|
|
|
Ehhhh.....not for nothing, but where did that thread go to? I wanted to read some of the comments there that I remember, because some members had recommended a certain version of the Ballet, but for the life of me I can't find the thread that I created specifically about the Ballet.
Mods: any idea where that went to? Did I break any rules with that?
I'm thinking of buying a late-minute Christmas present for a family member who I think would appreciate it, and it's probably going to be one of the Ballet wallets.
Do you mean this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5292310.msg55658855#msg55658855 It seems it got moved to the "Marketplace - Goods" section... Also, PROTIP: check your "My profile -> Show the last topics started by this person" link to find threads you've created |
|
|
|
As far as I know, the failed attempts reset only if you enter the correct PIN.
That is correct... the incorrect PIN counter is only reset once the device is unlocked correctly with the correct PIN (or the device is wiped). |
|
|
|
I acknowledge that it does help the user to a certain extent, is the fees being charged (0.000025BTC/tx) and considering that some would change to a HW wallet before they finish using the credit reasonable for the level of security provided?
For you and me? Probably not... for someone who wants something that is arguably more secure than a standard wallet and doesn't involve them having to learn how MultiSig actually works and uses a system (Google Authenticator) they're probably already familiar with? maybe? I wouldn't mind if the installer actually had big giant bold letters explaining how the system was going to work, that their first send transaction would add the extra fee and forced the user to actually see and agree to the fees BEFORE they finished creating the wallet... Even a pop-up during any "send" transaction where the additional fee is going to be added because the user has no credit would be a good step... at least then users would have a better understanding of why the extra 0.001 or 0.0025 BTC is being added to the transaction and sent to some "random" address If it would have costed a couple of cents per transaction (i.e. dust) and not paid in such big bulk then maybe it would worth it. But that's not feasible and as it is it may erode the actual reputation of the wallet.
It used to be a couple of cents and was charged per transaction... then BTC became more valuable and popular... and it was no longer financially viable for TrustedCoin to be collecting all the small "dust" payments. So, they moved to the "credit" based system that requires a bulk purchase. TrustedCoin previously supported paying on a per-transaction (as opposed to batch) basis but had to discontinue support for this due to mining fees. the otp is not used to encrypt anything. it's a 2 of 3 multisig wallet with only one of 3 extended private keys stored in the wallet file. during normal usage you have to get trusted coin to sign the transaction with their key so that the transaction goes through. they are the ones that make you enter the otp code.
He was trying to design an OTP system that didn't rely on a third party... ie. you could still require the 2FA app on your phone, but it would be just your Electrum wallet and your 2FA app... no third party involved. Honestly, I would have thought that the easier system would probably just be running a 2-of-2 MultiSig than attempting to mess around with OTP codes... |
|
|
|
|
Depends on the payment gateway... and how you choose to handle settlement... BitPay offers a facility where they pay vendors in fiat, crypto or a combination of the two...
Regardless, no one here can help the OP, they will need to contact either the Vendor and/or the payment gateway provider to figure out how to start a refund process (or get their order processed)
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm confused as to how they don't see the issue with just ending up with a large number of dice sitting in front of a person who then has to choose what order they need to be used in... It's really no different to giving a user say 2048 words and saying "pick 12/24 of these"  How about a funnel connected to a transparent tube so all dice ends up in it in a certain order? #ducttapeengineering I like it... but then I'm a fan of stupidly simple solutions |
|
|
|
Does this altcoin not have any compilation instructions on their github (or similar) repository? Usually, any minimum system requirements and/or specific software version requirements are mentioned there. If they aren't, contact the altcoin dev's and ask them. |
|
|
|
|
It will depend on a couple of things...
1. Was your wallet "HD" (if created in 2013, then it's likely that it wasn't)
2. Whether the address was from a fresh keypool or the keypool that's already in the "old" wallet.dat
If you wallet was HD, then you're likely fine... when you load the old copy, it should give you the same address when you generate a new receive address.
If your wallet isn't an "HD" wallet, then it depends on the keypool status. Non-HD wallets just randomly generate private keys, they're not related to each other and there is no way to regenerate the same keys if they're lost. Thankfully, the wallet tends to hold an "internal keypool" of pre-generated keys... it used to be 100 (for very old versions of Bitcoin Core), and was then extended to 1000 in the last year or three.
Chances are that the address you generated was from the keypool, so your old wallet copy should hopefully be able to recreate the address you used. Fingers crossed!
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure why there is so much "hate" for 2FA in Electrum? Sure it might not be useful to you or I personally (like web wallet services or paper wallets)... but there are definitely use-cases for it. If the computer gets compromised by malware, the OTP that could be captured can be used to get TrustedCoin to sign an alternate transaction.
Is that not true of any 2FA implementation tho? I don't see this as being exclusively an "Electrum 2FA" issue. It's like a lock on your front door, it'll stop a random person from walking off the street and into your house, but it isn't going to stop a determined burglar who will just put a brick through your window These sorts of mechanisms are designed to offer "added" security... not "total" security... as per the Electrum doc that you quote: adding another level of security in the event of your computer being compromised And a lot of newbies has been using 2FA and having quite some trouble with it as well. Newbies gonna newb... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I've seen newbies get into trouble with Electrum, Mycelium, Bitcoin Core, Armory, Blockchain.com, Jaxx, Exodus etc... I don't think it's an Electrum 2FA issue. With all due respect for the brilliant piece of software Electrum is, this 2FA feature caused more troubles to newbies than helping them and now it's time to think seriously that it should be retired.
Why? If you don't like it... there is an easy option: don't use it! Just because it doesn't protect all users in all situations (Spoiler: no security setup does or can), doesn't necessarily make it "bad"... |
|
|
|
SO, where did my bitcoins go to (are they lost in cyberspace?) or will they be returned to my wallet in due course? If the transaction is "confirmed", then the vendor (or their payment gateway provider) has your coins. You'll most likely need to contact them directly to request a refund. Do you know what the payment gateway was? Was it BitPay? In addition, the refund address that I generated has expired (Seven days is the maximum time that electrum allows an address to exist).
No, it hasn't... the addresses in Electrum do not "expire"... the "invoice" that you created on the "Receive" tab might display as "expired", but it's just a book-keeping thing in Electrum... the address will be valid forever (assuming you don't lose access to the wallet ) |
|
|
|
This issue is one of the reasons that I like to use linux App Image from Electrum. It doesn't interfere with earlier versions. Each App Image is fully independent and can sit on my Desktop to use. Worst case is delete the .electrum folder from my home, which takes a few seconds.
That's not always completely true... while the app image may run "OK", be aware that if there is an update to the wallet file "version" in a new Electrum version, your wallet file will be "updated" and then older versions will refuse to open it. |
|
|
|
...
I created a wallet with Electrum version 4.0.5 and transferred 0.001 btc to it as proof. In the history it appears as paid and has more than 5000 confirmations .
...
When I want to spend the balance, It does not matter what amount to send, I put it to pay from this address and in the Directions tab, complete the data to where I want to send the balance in the Send Tab. I have more than $ 15, but it indicates "not enough funds" and I cannot pay the transaction.
Are you attempting to send the entire 0.001 BTC? You need to remember to allow an amount for the transaction/miner fee... if your total balance is 0.001 BTC, you will NOT be able to send exactly 0.001 BTC. Like this example, you cannot send the entire balance, you get "Not Enough Funds":  Instead, if you want to send the entire balance... click the "max" button rather than trying to enter the amount yourself:  Electrum will then automatically adjust the amount to be sent based on the fee that you choose when you click "Pay":  |
|
|
|
Had the same thing from a different account a few days ago...  A fairly organised (and no doubt automated) campaign spamming this (fake?) "gunbot"... Looks like its going to be a case of "whack a mole" trying to stop these newbie accounts... Not much anyone can really do to avoid this sort of thing but disable PMs from Newbie accounts... which is something I'm a little reluctant to do, because I get a fair number of "legit" PMs from newbie accounts requesting help with technical problems etc  |
|
|
|
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
i had to go back to this topic five times before i finally learned how to sign a message and here im doing it and today is 12/12/2020
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
bc1qms2nn2yyjnrs7a4gdnggmme4t2fd3nem4q8ejx
ICPMBuY/ixaGNkZhB47G3cHpZAeGZkUspp2kcUcTH4ZHeaPqznPN2Dknq3WEj57+5X+wZQTXG1jsjNBVvJjl/FY=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Quoted and verified using Electrum. Although it isn't required, I would also recommend that you stake your address by posting your signed message over in the Stake your bitcoin address here thread as indicated by snipie. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
