EDIT: Or is this normal since I only have that one imported in Kleopatra?
and is it OK to proceed with this screen?
Yes it's normal, the message said " verified 'electrum.exe' with 'electrum.exe.asc'" so the signature checks out. Plus ThomasV's certificate is among the list; but if you want it " green", you can import and certify the other two. Failed verification will display it in red with the message " Invalid Signature". |
|
|
|
Okay, then the message not limited to 2fa wallet creation. If it's the standard wallet path, he may have not clicked " next" after selecting 'Use hardware device'. The point is, that message shouldn't be available in "Use a hardware device" option. I've pointed the '2fa' option because there are actual two selections there ( "Create a seed" & "I already have a seed") instead of the four options in 'standard wallet'. |
|
|
|
Is it possible to access this wallet to transfer it to Electrum wallet?
If you follow the instructions in the link above, you can skip the step to manually edit the derivation path but instead, click " Detect Existing Accounts" above That way, you'll see how many derivation paths have transaction history; If there's two~three results, create a separate Electrum wallet for each result. If there's only one result, just create that one, and you do not have to make another two wallets for the other script ( address) types. |
|
|
|
I downloaded the desktop version of electrum version 4.2.2. & it wont work with my ledger nano s after I click hardware device when it asks "Do you want to create a new seed, or to restore a wallet using an existing seed?"
I restarted my computer & its working now thanks.
I doubt that it's the restart that fixed it, rather, you've selected the wrong option when creating the wallet. That's because that message will display only if you go to " Wallet with two-factor authentication" instead of " Standard wallet->Use a hardware device". Reference: github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/electrum/plugins/trustedcoin/trustedcoin.py#L546Anyway, glad that it worked. |
|
|
|
Take note that it was Binance's system that had a "repair" not Bitcoin in general.
If they didn't broadcasted those pending consolidation 1sat/B-transactions but either make replacement with proper fee rate or halt consolidation for later,
it wouldn't have happened; thankfully that article mentioned that they've change their consolidation and withdrawal logic.
Without that unconfirmed parent, your transaction would have been confirmed by now without accelerating it (about 9~10 hours ago).
Take note it was Luna that started this downfall, and now Celsius, and if Binance becomes next then what would the future hold? I was talking about this thread's topic: the unconfirmed transaction's relation to the article that you've linked. I cannot comment on speculations specially in this board. regards, |
|
|
|
Currently our faith in Bitcoin has gone downhill, the raise of interest rates + global rising costs / inflation would hamper lenders like Celsius and Tether (USDT) could be next, -snip-
Take note that it was Binance's system that had a " repair" not Bitcoin in general. If they didn't broadcasted those pending consolidation 1sat/B-transactions but either make replacement with proper fee rate or halt consolidation for later, it wouldn't have happened; thankfully that article mentioned that they've change their consolidation and withdrawal logic. Without that unconfirmed parent, your transaction would have been confirmed by now without accelerating it ( about 9~10 hours ago). |
|
|
|
That makes sense. Your transaction's parent transaction has a fee rate of 1sat/B which was the optimal fee before the " surge". That should be one of their " pending consolidation transactions" ( 100in->1out) that got broadcasted after the repair. |
|
|
|
How much did you transfer? It's not worth paying an accelerator if the BTC you transfer is not big.
Both of his transaction IDs are posted in the OP. The transactions are now confirmed, guess the only issue left is his balance showing on his wallet which should have been solved by the " BRD scanning" toggle. |
|
|
|
I made two transactions from the app (outgoing) several hours ago and they still have 0 confirmations. Normally I wouldn’t be worried, but I just downloaded the CoinBase Wallet app on another device and imported the same wallet — on the new device there is no sign of the transactions AND it’s showing the wallet balance as $0?!?! I also ran the first transaction through an accelerator to no avail.
It should still be there since your two transactions are still valid, it's just the Coinbase Wallet app doesn't check for BRD wallet's derivation path by default, so it takes time for their server to check for the balance. If you need to speed it up, enable " Toggle BRD BTC Scanning" in the Advanced setting. BTW, the transactions aren't confirmed yet due to the network's average fee rate is quite high at the moment. |
|
|
|
-snip-
How can I verify the amount of BTC received offline?
Create a " watching-only" wallet version of your offline Electrum, there, you can see the balance and transactions. It's part of the cold-storage set-up suggested by users above, the watching-only wallet only contains your public keys so your funds are safe even if it's 'hacked'. |
|
|
|
You should post this in the proper " marketplace" board: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=5.0In either " Services" or " Computer hardware" ( if it's hardware related) child-boards, depending on the nature of your service. Note that topics like this is allowed in those boards only if you're accepting Bitcoin as payment. There's a small " move topic" button below the page. |
|
|
|
The private key you have encrypts the wallet file you created, so if a SCAMMER finds your file, they need the password to decrypt it.
This is probably a typo right? Because it looks like you meant " the password you have..." instead of " private key". Otherwise it's incorrect. |
|
|
|
Reloading the page refreshes it to the server's version, the edit works in that session and in your browser only. I don't know about Brave, but there is a way to permanently save changes done on Chrome with Inspect Element on your computer. It's a browser extension called Permanent Inspect Element. Not planning to install it but I've read though the reviews and found out that the edit only works in the URL that's edited and not the whole domain. The developer also has a reply saying that it wont work if the CSS form is separate from the HTML form. ( if I understand it correctly) Plus, that part of my reply is for users who've tried the instruction and want to revert back the local changes :) |
|
|
|
SegWit cost low gas fee then other wallet like Legacy (P2PKH), -snip-
Please do not use the term " gas fee" in Bitcoin. It's an Ethereum term, use " fee rate" for the 'sat/vB' amount or " fee" for the absolute fee instead. |
|
|
|
-snip- But what about if I backup the wallet encrypted and my laptop is damaged and I want to recover through encrypted backup file. Is it possible to buy another laptop, recover the private keys from the encrypted file backup if I download electrum on the new electrum wallet downloaded on new laptop?
Though I will have my seed phrase too in case that does not work.
Then just load the existing wallet file to the new laptop's Electrum. It will work like how it used to be in the damaged laptop. I can't see any reason to go for the trouble of decrypting the wallet file to get the keys if you have the seed phrase as backup. |
|
|
|
-snip-
I’m not very familiar with python and I can’t seem to get them working for Windows Vista so pywallet works but the end result seems to just show encrypted keys?
It runs so it's working. If the wallet dump contains encrypted keys, then the wallet is encrypted, you'll have to add the argument --passphrase "your_password" to your command. If the password you've entered is incorrect, it will still try but the result will still be encrypted keys and you'll get this line somewhere above it: " The wallet is encrypted and the passphrase is incorrect". |
|
|
|
-snip-
Is that 0 fee transaction confirmed by the same miner or pool that sends it? I mean the first confirmation. No one can be so certain. But since most pools do not accept others' 0-fee transactions in their mempool, then you can safely assume that it's the same pool who've included it to their own block. |
|
|
|
Do you mean " sec" which describes the WIF private key in the quoted message in this reply of yours: /index.php?topic=161030Then based from the OP, the " secret" is the ECDSA private key? If so, you can refer to these documentations: |
|
|
|
-snip-
EDIT: but it seems not the proper way without visible sha256, because WIFs look totally different. I should use at least one sha256.
I'm not suggesting to edit your WIF generation method so do not change it since it's the proper way to generate a Brainwallet ( uncompressed) which is basically: "get a phrase->hash it once->prepend 0x80->Base58Check" <-- the 'SHA256 twice' is used in that last stepWhile the WIF wiki only contains: "private key->prepend 0x80->Base58Check" <-- the 'SHA256 twice' is used in that last stepbecause it's a documentation for encoding private key into WIF, not brainwallet. I'm just correcting this part: Seems like the way the WIF was encoded for most private keys is SHA256 used once which is different from what tells the documentation of WIF.
Docs say that SHA256 should be done twice (second time on result of first). Strange.
There shouldn't be any misleading info in that Bitcoin Wiki page. |
|
|
|
Meaning even if the result on Kleopatra couldn't verify the signature it should have the name, email, and keyID like the result of the image above -snip-
That's good. You can also " Certify" goatpig's certificate so the data can be verified ( green); he posted his fingerprint above, just compare it with the imported certificate's fingerprint. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
