Was trying to update my bitcoin wallet after many months (24 months) although the PC has now run out of Hard drive space, and the BTC software seems outdated, what is the best way to get the wallet up to date. (i have located the wallet.dat file on the pc)
Considering you're talking about wallet.dat, then I'll assume you're running Bitcoin Core. First up, make a copy (or three) of your wallet.dat. Then you'll need to make a decision regarding your storage options. Can you add a larger drive to your system? If so, then get at least a 500GB, but preferably a 1TB drive and add it to your system. Afterwards, goto https://bitcoincore.org/ and get the latest version of Bitcoin Core (currently 0.20.1) and install that. Now, you can read: How to move the Bitcoin Core Data Directory-, so you can move the data directory onto your new, larger, storage drive. Then simply start Bitcoin Core and let it sync up... it'll eventually finish and you'll have a fully synced node, using your old wallet.dat with the latest version of Bitcoin Core. If you can't add a new drive to your setup, then your options are: 1. Pruning of Bitcoin Core or 2. Exporting your private keys from Bitcoin Core and then importing into an SPV wallet like Electrum or Wasabi etc. |
|
|
|
If you make two separate transactions, one from each address, then the answer is more complicated. If both transactions are to the same deposit address, and that address can easily be identified as belonging to an exchange, then that is a fairly strong indication that the same person controls both addresses
Why?  I don't follow that logic. You could have easily told Person A to send funds directly to your exchange deposit address... and also told Person B to send funds directly to your exchange deposit address. Just because two addresses have sent to the same address, there is no reason to tag them as "probably" belonging to the same person, even if the destination is an exchange deposit address. Basically, it's like saying "AddressA sent to AddressC" and "AddressB sent to AddressC" so A and B are "alt accounts". That's proof of nothing other than A and B sent funds to C. There is no way to definitively determine the relationship between A and B, without extra information being available. |
|
|
|
...
I tried using a legacy address (The one that starts with 1) and I got a different error message: The address provided does not match any private key. Then you are attempting to sign a message using an address for which your wallet does not contain the matching private key. Where did this address come from? Did you generate it using your Bitcoin Core wallet? If so, how did you generate this address? If you didn't generate it from your Bitcoin Core wallet, then follow hosseinimr93's advice and generate a legacy address from within Bitcoin Core, then sign a message using the newly created legacy address. Or get the private key from bitcoin core and import it to Electrum(As temporary) and make a sign message.
That is a terrible idea. Private keys should not be exported/imported without a very good reason (like last ditch attempts at fund recovery etc)... exposing one simply to sign a message is a terrible reason, imo.  |
|
|
|
i wouldn't call overpaying fees "smarter". paying the exact amount needed to have high priority is "smart".
And there is the rub... what exactly is "the exact amount needed to have a high priority"? This can not be answered with any real certainty as there are just so many factors at play, some of which are just not predictable. The exact amount "now" may not be the "exact amount" required in even 1 seconds time depending on things like new transactions being broadcast, a block being found etc. It's all guesswork, and likely always will be. |
|
|
|
If you read the reddit threads, the Ledger staff claim that in every single case where someone has provided the appropriate details to them (ie. email address or phone number that received the phishing message), they have been able to identify that the data was already provided to them prior to the initial hack (ie. the person had already signed up for a newsletter or purchased a device using those details in the past). It really is a "he said/she said" type situation... users claiming they received nothing until they purchased a black friday deal, then they magically start receiving messages... Ledger claiming there is no "ongoing" or "new" leak. Having said that... I haven't purchased anything from them in over 3 years. Never received any messages/texts after the initial hack back in July/August etc... until I received the latest "We are sorry to tell you that due to the new KYC regulations, your hardware device has been deactivated." message 2 days ago. It wasn't even personally addressed, it just said: "Dear <my.email @address.com>"... so I'm not even sure if it was from the Ledger leak, or is just a semi-targeted campaign using details from one of the many crypto service hacks Personally, I think the users saying "I got this message after buying on Black Friday" is just a timing coincidence... but that still doesn't change the fact that Ledger fucked up originally and haven't done a great job of handling it. |
|
|
|
|
Just FYI, I have contacted Grant Thornton directly and am awaiting confirmation that this email and the "Claims Portal" are indeed legit or if it is another 3rd party "scam" like that cryptopia rescue outfit... I'll update if/when I get a response.
|
|
|
|
Ohh and for the record an old wallet with the old password doesn't work. so you can't fall back to that if you make a new password, thanks again for all who took the time out to help me, hope you all stay safe.
That isn't correct... You can absolutely fall back to an old copy with the old password. If you have a wallet.dat that is using "password1" and you then make a copy of that wallet.dat and change the password of the copy to "password2", then the original version of the wallet.dat will still be using "password1". Nothing you do to a copy (in terms of passwords) will affect the original file. How can it? If the original is not being modified, then the password cannot possibly have changed. It makes no sense. I suspect you've gotten confused with all the "copies" and have actually been attempting to open the old file with the new password (or vice versa). In any case, I'm glad you've managed to get it sorted and have a functioning backup  |
|
|
|
That leaves me with the question, what would be a usecase to unload and later load a wallet? Evt. making a backup while the node is running? Others?
Testing would be one use case (I just used this exact feature to grab a screenshot of the warning message that one gets if they encrypt a previously unencrypted wallet file)... It might also be useful for users who have and regularly use multiple wallets and don't want to accidentally use the wrong wallet when generating a receive address, or accidentally send from the wrong wallet... Another use case I could think of would be a "holding" or "savings" wallet, that you don't often need to use... but may need to open occasionally to send/receive. By "closing" or unloading a wallet that you don't want to use, you lessen the odds of using the wrong the wallet/addresses etc. |
|
|
|
lol if i had access to my wallet.dat now i wont be posting this now i have access to the one not encrypted but i do know the passworld i put for the encrypt one but not sure were i can find the wallet or key i still got the computer working fine ... and yes i look in binance address and is not on my wallet i still got my old computer but no idea if i can retrieve my wallet from there ...
Sadly, if you didn't take a "new" backup after you encrypted your wallet, then chances are your coins are lost There is even a warning after you encrypt a wallet that was not previously encrypted:  NOTE: simply changing the passphrase does NOT render old backups obsolete... it's only when you encrypt a previously unencrypted wallet file. |
|
|
|
Received this via email a couple of hours ago:  Not sure if it is "legit" or not... There does not appear to be any update on the Grant Thornton website regarding this "portal". I contacted Grant Thornton directly to enquire as to whether they have indeed setup the "Claims Portal" (it links to a .cryptopia.co.nz domain) or if it is some third-party that is attempting to harvest user info/login details etc. Will update when I receive a reply. |
|
|
|
I'm confused, if you just need to enter your Master Public Key, how Mycelium charge 0.5% service fee?
I have never gone over the 0.1 BTC threshold, but I suspect they will just "lock" your account so that the widgets no longer function and/or you are unable to log into your account if you refuse to pay up the service fee. It seems to bill "in arrears"... mine says the next bill will be payable on Dec 9th... but is 0 BTC to pay as I have not received over the 0.1 BTC threshold. |
|
|
|
... I am not sure which OS you use and which version of the software you downloaded, but it is always advisable to verify the signatures to make sure the software is legit. If you don't know how to do that, check here > https://bitcoinelectrum.com/how-to-verify-your-electrum-download/ Whatever they say on reddit, they surely didn't get a trojan from the official releases on electrum.org. They either downloaded a fake software from elsewhere, or their anti virus falsely reported Electrum as malware. Thanks man, I sort of impressed myself by setting it up and doing the PGP verify thru kleopatra.  lots has changed since 2012. lol Good to see someone actually taking the time to read, learn and verify... Hopefully this will act as an example to other users that it isn't "impossible" (or insanely difficult) to verify the digital signatures of Electrum and might help encourage others to do the same! |
|
|
|
Depending on how much you're expecting to receive... Mycelium Gear offers a "free" service for up to 0.1 BTC/month... once you tick over 0.1btc/month, there is a service fee of 0.5% per transactionEssentially, you plug in a Master Public Key, and it takes care of the rest, and provides code and/or widgets you can use to embed the "donate" button on your website. So, if you're after a quick and easy solution and you expect to get less than 0.1btc/month, it might be worth checking out. If you're expecting more and don't want the fees, then I'd be inclined to run a node and use something like btcpayserver like mocacinno suggested. |
|
|
|
The actual issue was that the script of BTCrecover is not encoded for Mac OS, so this needed a few adjustments to make it work.
Any chance you could be a bit more specific as to what was needed to make btcrecover work? It's a Python script, and Python is cross-platform, so the script shouldn't really have needed any mods to be "MacOS" compatible. Unless it was just that the version of Python that is included in MacOS is incompatible with btcrecover? For instance, there were "breaking" changes made to Python v3 that can cause issues with scripts designed for Python v2 |
|
|
|
The "advantage" was that Bitkey was preconfigured with some "no network" options, so on boot you could choose to boot with zero networking... and it then launched a version that had no networking enabled. I believe it was actually disabled at kernel level, so no need to worry about disconnecting ethernet or switching off WiFi etc... Otherwise, it really wasn't any different to using a "normal" LiveOS. |
|
|
|
BTW amazing job painting a visual picture using words and just pipes and arrows.
But I am still confused about vout. Why are they always 0 or 1 or 2??
They are just a sequence of "outputs", numbered from 0... up to (number of outputs - 1) so if you have 1 output, it will be vout = 0... if you have 10 outputs created by the transaction, you will have 10 vouts numbered 0-9. If you have 100 outputs, they'll be number 0-99 etc. Like this transaction.... it has 15 outputs, so the highest vout = 14. The reason most transactions only have vout 0 or 1, is simply because that is the most common type of transaction, sending to one recipient, that either sends ALL the coins to that recipient, so only one output... so only vout = 0... OR They send to one recipient and create "change"... so 2 outputs created... so vout = 0 and vout =1. Correct me if I am wrong, so there are 2 types of TXIDs.. one's which are receipts of coins received by me and ones which are sent by me.
No, there is no "type" of TXID. The TXID (ie. Transaction ID) is simply a hash of the transaction data... With regards to transactions that might show in your wallet history, you can think of them as being two different types... "Receiving" transactions, where someone is sending coins from an address that is external to your wallet to an address controlled by your wallet... and "Sending" transactions, where coins are being sent from your wallet to somewhere else. And the output of :
bitcoin-cli listreceivedbyaddress
shows both types of txids
Correct?
No... as per the help text, listreceivedbyaddress simply groups all the "receive" type transactions by address... List balances by receiving address
it will not show "sending" transactions, nor will it show your "change" addresses that are receiving coins from sending transactions that you initiate. |
|
|
|
Ooof.. that's not really much of a discount... I'm wondering if the retailers are just banking on the fact that BTC is once again near ATH prices that people might be more concerned about losing significant sums of $$$ and might be keen to pay whatever it takes to get a hardware wallet? |
|
|
|
Glad that you managed to get it all sorted... I'm beginning to think we need a "sticky" at the top of the Armory section titled "Basic Troubleshooting" that includes the most common things: 1. Is Bitcoin Core actually installed and synced? 2. Is Bitcoin Core running in "pruned" mode? If so, turn it off, go back to Step 1. 3. Are you using the latest version of Armory from https://btcarmory.com/ ? (NOT from bitcoinarmory .com) 4. Are you using the latest version of Bitcoin Core from https://bitcoincore.org?etc etc... |
|
|
|
"Brainwallet"? So, you're certain that you selected the 12 words yourself? and they were not randomly chosen and displayed to you by the application when you created the wallet? Or did you get the 12 words from the application during wallet creation, and just wrote them down in a jumbled order and now cannot remember the correct order? Also, for the record, that list only has 1626 words Also, I read in the forum that the required number of words wasn't always a standard 12-word set. This was implemented in 2015. Are these extra words currently inserted at the extended words menu, or were they part of the seed phrase entered to generate the wallet?
If you're referring to Electrum having 13 word seed phrases etc, they were part of the seed phrase itself as far as I'm aware, and as such were still part of the word list... the 13th word was really just a checksum. "extended words", on the other hand, can literally be anything like "^sdg@!#ah123" or "These Are My Extended Words" or "oneTwoThree" etc. I'm sure the various recovery services have their own custom scripts (or derivations of btcrecover)... but there aren't any other "public" tools that I'm aware of for trying to recover Electrum seed phrases. |
|
|
|
Do you need to create a separate wallet for each user and for them to be able to generate multiple addresses? Or are you wanting to use one wallet that you control, and simply provide the users with a unique "deposit" address so they can send you bitcoins? What exactly are you attempting to build? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
