-snip-
Is there, somewhere, a list of derivation paths that can be tried? Is it possible that I need a modified derivation path for return transactions?
Unfortunately, derivation path is specific to the wallet. AFAIK and as others have said, BRD used " m/0' " which is the path for " Non-standard legacy (Account 0)". You can try to generate more address to see if your bitcoins is in your addresses higher than Electrum's default gap limit. Enable the console tab ( View->Show Console) and open it, type: [wallet.create_new_address(False) for i in range(300)] And for the change addresses: [wallet.create_new_address(True) for i in range(300)] Those will force Electrum to derive 300 more addresses past the gap limit. |
|
|
|
Can you please elaborate further regarding this question? All I got were two entries corresponding to my BTC transfers to BRD Wallet and two entries of equal value to the receipt values, which I assume correspond to me converting part of each of the amounts received to ETH.
-snip-
This ( testnet):  It shows an example where it detected two " accounts" with transaction history. If there's only one result, then there's no other derivation paths detected and that was the sole derivation path with transaction history. To go further, you can try other derivation paths that's not listed in the link in my reply above but I have no idea what other paths BRD wallet used. |
|
|
|
6- Selected "Detect existing accounts." It still had the legacy account selected and m/0' shown in the box below it.
Then in the previous reply, you mean you've selected " Non-standard Legacy (account 0)" then it auto-selected legacy and auto-edited the derivation path. How many results did you get? Just that one? If that's the case, then Electrum couldn't find any bitcoins from all of the listed paths in the link in my previous post. There's none in the second account index of that particular path either. |
|
|
|
2- I used my recovery phrase to create a new wallet. I can't remember all of the exact selections I made, but I believe that I selected BIP39 path of m/0'.
This doesn't look like the result of " Detect Existing Accounts". The results of detect existing accounts shouldn't have the derivation path " m/0' " indicated, instead, it should either be one of the " description" in this list + the account index: github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/electrum/bip39_wallet_formats.jsone.g.: Non-standard legacy (account 0) Anyways, if there's a list after using the automatic account detection, then there's more than one derivation path that contain bitcoins. In that case, restore as much wallets as the results. You can restore the other accounts by using the menu " File->New Restore" and select the other path for the new wallet. |
|
|
|
-snip-
nc501c,
I did choose the p2pkh option and changed the derivation path to m/44'/145'/0' and I received the green check marked key, I tabbed the addresses and see the coin, I am unsure how to select the address which holds the coin. When I used the send option there is no from address listed, so I don't know if I am accessing the correct account. After 3 attempts of varying options I must be missing a 'select ' option somewhere.
Since it's originally a 'BCH account' restored to a Bitcoin [BTC] wallet, there shouldn't be any other input aside from the wrongly sent one. If you use the 'send' tab, it should automatically select that sole coin as input, you can now send it back to your BTC account. But if you want to see the available UTXO, just enable " coins" tab: " View->Show Coins". To select an input, right-click on it ( you can multi-select with Shift/Ctrl+click) and select " spend"; a green " coin control active" note will be visible below and will use the selected coin(s) as input(s) when you send. |
|
|
|
So a priori what I have is good no ?
--> I mean. For the moment, I haven't import my private key. So (according to rick), it's normal that they haven't asked the password yet because it's the next step...
Ah, so what you meant in the previous reply is when you select " import bitcoin addresses or private keys"? If that's the case, then it's normal. If you can remember, the other standard wallet that you've created asked for a password in the last step of the install wizard. Any wallet type is the same, the password will be prompted in the last step. |
|
|
|
No. I will use macOS (a priori)
Then you either missed the last step where it prompts you to enter a password or you're using a fake Electrum since the Desktop version doesn't have " password unification" like the Android version. |
|
|
|
But for some reason I cannot send the last remaining bit of bitcoin, and this is despite me keeping the inputs to 15, as stated on the transaction window in electrum. Would anyone know why? I'm not sure what has to be done differently. It says 'Inputs (15)'.
Are you getting any error message when spending the last batch of inputs? If 20 inputs have worked, then 15 shouldn't be a problem. Also, try to enable logging and see if there's an error related to the issue: " Tools->Preferences->Write logs to file", restart Electrum. Reproduce the issue in that session, then you can disable logging again; the logs will be saved in " logs" folder inside Electrum data directory. |
|
|
|
I am having some trouble sending with Electrum in my Trezor device. I was instructed by Trezor to get a Electrum wallet and set it up to access my public keys in my Trezor so I can send a Bitcoin that is currecntly in a Bitcoin Cash wallet, back to it original wallet.
-snip-
It's probably easier if you setup Electrum to use Bitcoin Cash's derivation path to access your BCH account's public keys. Just follow this instructions from Trezor Wiki: wiki.trezor.io/Apps:ElectrumBut during the step: " 4. Choose the type of addresses in your wallet account.", do this instead: select " legacy (p2pkh)", then edit the derivation path below from m/44'/0'/0' into m/44'/145'/0' or m/44'/145'/1' for the 2nd account... m/44'/145'/2' for the third and so forth. Wait for a few minutes to sync the balance, then send the bitcoins back to the correct address. |
|
|
|
-snip-
However, what I think strange is :
-For opening the standard wallet already created I need a password
-When I create a new wallet (for importing the key) they don't ask me for a password for the new wallet. Is it normal ?
That's normal if you're using the Android version; That's not normal if you're using the Desktop version. So it seems like you're using an Android device to claim your Casascius coin's bitcoins... that's concerning. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Anyone else is invited to chip in with a suggestion or an interesting question !
How about if N-days have passed and the puzzle isn't solved yet, open that round for all ranks instead of just newbies? You can decide on the number of days. |
|
|
|
You can update this now, no need for manual import through the console/command. Bitcoin Core version 23.0 now creates descriptor wallets with Taproot parent descriptors by default. And it's now possible to request Bitcoin taproot " bech32m" address from the GUI's receive tab if the wallet has the parent descriptor:  Reference: Wallet- Descriptor wallets are now the default wallet type. Newly created wallets
will use descriptors unless descriptors=false is set during createwallet, or
the Descriptor wallet checkbox is unchecked in the GUI.
- Newly created descriptor wallets will contain an automatically generated tr()
descriptor which allows for creating single key Taproot receiving addresses.
|
|
|
|
-snip- I know some services online allow us to create transactions, but they could use bitcoin core in the backend for it. And I start this post to see if it was possible without this main software.
Just do not use any transaction generation software at all so you can make sure that Bitcoin Core isn't involved. Except for the signing part since you can't compute the signature by hand. Use your Notepad or any text editor: First, list all the data that you need - input (TXID:VOUT), output's scriptPubKey. Example ( mainnet): input: aaf952cd5604ee02fdcb1c700c8f2f0759af55b8b468adff91ef468540ac336f
vout: 0
value: 100000 satoshi
output: bc1qe55yu3dkw7rc7n8kk2r4r2nq3phagpxnzljtm2
scriptPubKey: 0014cd284e45b677878f4cf6b28751aa60886fd404d3 [22 Bytes in decimal = 16 in HEX]
value: 0.00099720BTC = 99720 satoshi = 0000000000018588 in HEX [8 Bytes] Then construct a transaction by following this structure: learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/transaction-dataFor the fields with " Reverse Byte Order", use this tool: learnmeabitcoin.com/tools/swapendian/ ( or do it manually) Manually constructed transaction from the example above: 01000000016f33ac408546ef91ffad68b4b855af59072f8f0c701ccbfd02ee0456cd52f9aa0000000000ffffffff018885010000000000160014cd284e45b677878f4cf6b28751aa60886fd404d300000000 Broken down into parts: 01000000 (version: 1 in 'reverse byte order')
01 (input count: 1)
6f33ac408546ef91ffad68b4b855af59072f8f0c701ccbfd02ee0456cd52f9aa (input's txid in 'reverse byte order')
00000000 (vout: 0 in 'reverse byte order')
00 (scriptSig size)
[no scriptSig]
ffffffff (sequence in 'reverse byte order')
01 (output count: 1)
8885010000000000 (value in 'reverse byte order')
16 (ScriptPubKey size)
0014cd284e45b677878f4cf6b28751aa60886fd404d3 (ScriptPubKey)
00000000 (locktime in 'reverse byte order') Lastly, sign the raw transaction using your preferred software ( I used Bitcoin Core since it's Taproot). Screenshot that shows it's valid after signing:  ( transaction is not broadcasted) |
|
|
|
Fee Estimation failed . fallback fee is disabled. Wait a few blocks or enable -fallbackfee
i just let it do its thing while watching a movie and now it's cleared.... guess he had to catch up some blocks for good :)
It indeed required to catch-up because the fee estimation algorithm will have to check your mempool and blockchain for the latest transactions' fee rate. Next time if you need to send a transaction right away: you can manually set the fee rate by clicking " Choose..." next to the transaction fee. It will let you set a custom transaction fee at BTC/kvB; e.g.: 0.00001000 for 1sat/vB. |
|
|
|
Here are some quotes of satoshi's posts that support the previously given answers... From this topic: /index.php?topic=571.msg5712#msg5712For " shorter addresses" -snip- To make Bitcoin Addresses short, they are a hash of the public key, not the public key itself. Security of HASH160 -snip-
Bitcoin Addresses are the only place where 160-bit hash is used. Everything else is SHA-256. They're calculated as:
bitcoinaddress = RIPEMD-160(SHA-256(publickey))
Correct me if I'm wrong (please, and I'll gladly eat crow) but I think it would be hard to use an analytical attack on RIPEMD-160 in this case. An analytical attack prescribes a certain range or pattern of inputs to try that will greatly increase your chance of finding a collision. Here, you don't have that kind of control over RIPEMD-160's input, because the input is the output of SHA-256. If an analytical attack helps you find an input to RIPEMD-160 that produces a collision, what are you going to do with it? You still have to get SHA-256 to output that value, so you would still have to break SHA-256 too.
For brute force, RIPEMD-160(SHA-256(x)) is no stronger than RIPEMD-160 alone. But for analytical attack, it seems like you must analytical attack both RIPEMD-160 and SHA-256. If I'm wrong, then the strength is the same as RIPEMD-160 and the SHA-256 only serves as one round of key strengthening.
|
|
|
|
It would be a digital ape fight for the reward and you by depositing on the address will make a number x of apes around the world at maximun excitement.
A fight of whon collect first, are you ready to fight? Are you fast enough?
Most of those " apes" have already set-up a system that can automatically sweep bitcoins sent to famous leaked private keys. It's not about having fast reactions, it about having the fastest node, code, internet, etc. which IMO isn't exciting at all. Creating a group that will watch this specific address could attract donators or even member of the group themselves will donate, yes. But the ones who'll likely win are still the ones who've been collecting the funds, not the ones who are unaware of the info above. |
|
|
|
-snip-
However, if I understand well what I have to do is :
-Choose the option "Create New Wallet"
-When the dialog box asks "What kind of wallet do you want to create ? " --> I have to choose "Import bitcoin addresses or Private keys"
-Enter the private key of the "Cascasius" coin in the dialog box and click on "Next"
-After that, my Electrum wallet (the new one then) should show exactly 1.BTC as balance and I will have the possibility to send the amount on the exchange platform of my choice
You can still create another wallet while another instance is open, use the menu " File->New/Restore" to go to the install wizard, that will enable you to create a new wallet. Just make sure to remember the wallet's name so you wont mix them up with each other if you forgot about the first one. |
|
|
|
Bumping this quite old thread to include a solution involving today's latest Bitcoin Core version ( v23.0). It's now possible to export the parent descriptor with xprv key by using the command: listdescriptors true. You can get your address' prvKey with the help of Iancoleman's BIP39 tool ( or any alternative). Steps: - First use the command: getaddressinfo <address> and take note of the result.
- Export the parent descriptor (private) with the command: listdescriptors true.
- Select the correct parent descriptor based from the address' script type (pkh, wpkh, sh),
also check if it's a descriptor for receiving or change addresses ("internal": false = receiving | true = change); then take note of its xprv key. - Launch BIP39 tool (offline) and paste the xprv key as "BIP32 Root Key".
- Select the correct derivation path as described in the descriptor, the derived addresses and private keys will be listed below the page.
If the address is not in the list: In getaddressinfo's result, look for "hdkeypath":" to see the index ( last digit), since the tool will only show 20 by default; generate more rows if it's 20+. Also check if the path is correct. For Taproot descriptors, the suggested tool doesn't support it yet. |
|
|
|
Not possible to select UTXO in Android version of Electrum! Very bad, I cannot pay anythng because transaction cost is tens of dollars.
Response:
-snip-
The drawback is if the unwanted and preferred UTXO are tied to the same address, you can't select them individually.
This does not work. Addresses are not UTXO. I have old-format address, so the option "Addresses" show only one entry. However, I have tens of UTXO's on that address, so when I set up payment, it is sourced by many UTXO's and fee is multiplied by number of these UTXO's.
Yep, that's the " drawback" that I've described in that response. So your wallet is [imported] and consist of a single private key, Electrum is designed to spend all UTXO that's tied to the same address to consolidate them, that's backfiring for some Electrum users. The only only-Electrum solution that I can suggest is to use a " watching-only" desktop Electrum to create your transaction, then export the unsigned raw transaction ( via QR) to your Android Electrum to be signed and broadcast. Note: Since you'll only import the address and not the prvKey to a desktop Electrum, you can use any PC ( borrow or rent) to set it up. The only issue is privacy which you don't actually have in the first place since Electrum is an SPV wallet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
