What error do you see in the console (F12) now?

There are some small security benefits to using a 2FA wallet, but it comes with an additional cost in fees (both larger transaction fees and fees to the third party TrustedCoin), as well as a loss of privacy due to the reliance on said third party. Such a set up can be better achieved by making your own multi-sig wallet between (for example) your computer and your phone, or by using a hardware wallet.

However, none of that matters here. In this case you are simply exporting a single private key in order to make your timelocked address. Any 2FA system will be bypassed by doing this, so it achieves nothing.

Don't worry. There is plenty to go around! (Mildly NSFW gif.)

The make run command simply compiles the multisig.js file (which seems to be working fine for you - you can tell for sure by the presence of a file called multisig.js in your multisig-tool folder), and then attempts to launch an HTTP server. Running an HTTP server is the alternative to trying to launch chrome with --allow-file-access-from-files.

Since the make run command is trying to launch an HTTP server using a Python 2 command, and you have Python 3 installed, then instead of using make run you can just launch the HTTP server directly using the command I gave above:

You should run it from your multisig-tool folder, the one with "index.html" in it. Open a terminal here and enter the command. If it has worked, it should say something like:

Then you just open any web browser, and navigate to that address - http://0.0.0.0:8000. The tool will load and hopefully(!) be fully functional.

This means your --allow-file-access-from-files isn't working as intended. I've never used Chrome so can't advise otherwise here. I use the alternative HTTP Server method instead, which works just fine. Did you make any headway on that?

The command given above is for Python 2:

If you are using Python 3, try the following command:

Yes, open your local copy of index.html.

Once you open it, hit F12 on your keyboard and click on the Console tab. Does it show you any errors?

Leo.

There is no ToS to accept when creating a standard Electrum wallet. Are you trying to create a two-factor authentication wallet by mistake?

It won't generate a segwit timelocked address, no.

Correct. Transactions which send coins to your timelocked wallet will be like any other transaction and will confirm normally.

Yes, absolutely. I've skimmed through the guide you linked and I can't see any major issues. It will create an address which you can send as many transaction as you like to, and none of the coins sent to that address can be redeemed until after the date or block height that you have chosen. The most important parts are to ensure you are downloading the legitimate versions of Electrum and Coinbin (i.e. download them from Github and verify their signatures), do the whole process on an offline (ideally permanently airgapped) device to protect your private keys, and to save the redeem script that you generate.

All you are using Electrum for here is generating a keypair to use in the Coinbin script. You could use any good piece of software, such as Bitcoin Core, to generate a keypair if you prefer.

I would also suggest that something like $50 a month is probably better than $10 a week, otherwise you will end up spending a large amount on transaction fees when you need to consolidate all your small inputs.

For a technical question such as this, you are exponentially more likely to get useful replies rather than generic spam by posting in this board than by posting in a board such as Bitcoin Discussion.

Just leave it out. It is "required" only if you want to create a data output. If you don't want a data output, it isn't required and can be left out entirely.

Well, let's just hope you don't suffer from hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia!

As you wish. BRING ON THE FLÜGGÅӘNK∂€ČHIŒßØLʃÊN!

I don't disagree with you, that there are lots of people who will think that this is a good thing and who will absolutely buy this device.

But it is a triumph of marketing on behalf of companies such as Block and centralized exchanges that they have convinced people that they are too stupid/careless to be able to safely write down 12 words and keep them safe, and that they need to trust third parties with their coins, keys, seed phrases, or recovery processed instead. The whole point of bitcoin is that you don't need to rely on third parties.

No, they don't. They show the timestamp that miner used when they found a hash which met the target.

It is absolutely trivial to do. A miner can freely pick a timestamp within about a 3 hour window, on average.

Blocks are added based on block height, not timestamp. Block timestamps frequently go back in time.

Only if it were outwith the window as described above.

---

This reads like it was written by ChatGPT or similar. Can anyone confirm and report?

I do not know anybody who browses the internet in that way. And even if you do, that does nothing to protect you against your final destination being compromised or the many possible attacks which do not require you to connect to a specific website first.

I also have a number of hot wallets on a number of different phones over many years, and have had nothing happen to them. I continue to use such wallets as my daily spending wallets. But I am under no illusion that although I have been safe thus far, these wallets have the worst security of any wallet I use, and therefore I only ever store an amount I am willing to lose in these wallets. They are for convenience, not safety. Given that OP is talking about buying bitcoin and holding it for "a very long time", a simple hot wallet like this would be a very poor choice.

Four years really is a phenomenal achievement. I continue to be honored to be a member of this most exclusive of clubs!

I've been waiting over 2 years for a fully uncensored version of this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293897.msg55699259#msg55699259. Glad that day has finally arrived!

My only phobia is vestiphobia.

Google!? As in, the same Google that are infamous for hosting scams and malware, for accepting money from scammers to boost their scam sites to the top of search results, for accepting money from scammers to place scam ads everywhere, for hosting malicious apps on their playstore, and for harvesting data from your microphone and keyboard and storing it on their servers? Even if you think using Google is safe, all it takes is one wrong click to end up on one of the scams that they are quite happy to promote in exchange for payment. I'm not trusting the security of my wallets to one wrong click.

And even if you don't browse any websites at all, your device still has an internet connection meaning it is still a viable target for attacks.

Hence the instructions I gave in the first post on this thread. These instruction, while still not perfect, are the best that can realistically be achieved using only a single smartphone and are far better than keeping coins in a hot wallet and hoping that you don't get any malware.

It's a scam.

I mean, it is immediately obvious just looking at it that it is a scam, but if you spent 5 seconds searching online you would find dozens of other cookie cutter sites with different names using the exact same template. Here is one such example: https://ringmining.info/

If anyone tells you to deposit money in order to be allowed to withdraw money, they are trying to scam you.

I have no idea how people throw around $300,000 in to any old shit they come across on Google without a second thought. Sorry OP, but you have lost everything. You will also lose any other money you give to these scammers.

When you are creating an Electrum wallet (or later adding a password to an already created Electrum wallet without a password) there is a checkbox which says "Encrypt wallet file". This is automatically checked, so in the vast majority of cases adding a password also encrypts the wallet file and therefore prevents you from opening it without the password. You can, however, uncheck this box, which will then only password protect the private keys. So you can open the wallet to view the transactions and addresses, but cannot spend without the password.

If the wallet is truly watch only, then it will say that at the top of the wallet window. Something like "Electrum 4.x.x - WALLET_NAME [watching only]".

If it is not watching only, and you have simply forgotten the password, then you could attempt to bruteforce it using https://btcrecover.readthedocs.io/. This will require either for you to have some idea what the password might be, or to have used a weak password in the first place.

If it takes an anti-bitcoin centralized exchange buying some bitcoin to convince someone to trust bitcoin more than a centralized fractional reserve scam stablecoin, then they really need to spend more time learning and less time throwing their money away on shitcoins.

And miss an opportunity to pump his centralized BNB coin? The fact that he even puts BNB in the same category as bitcoin is laughable. BNB is just as centralized and just as risky as BUSD.

This sentence from the second paragraph really does sum this whole thing up very well:

That is an awful lot of things that could go wrong, a large attack surface, and lots of capacity for bugs and vulnerabilities. Compare to a standard hardware wallet which you can use with any open source software such as Electrum, and does not have any of this extraneous bloatware that Block are tacking on.

Also, why the hell would anyone want a recovery service that runs on their servers? I want a seed phrase which is under my control and my control only. Not some third party nonsense.

Exactly the kind of people you want designing and building a new hardware wallet, then.