|
If there is nothing useful in that db.log, maybe try using the GNU Debugger (gdb) and see if you can backtrace the core dump (Google/YouTube have some resources available on using gdb to debug "SegFaults")... that might help point you to what is actually causing the error.
|
|
|
|
Ahhhh ok, I don't need to worry then... I'm already at the recommended patch  lightning:lnbc100u1p0czenjpp5683x2mvxvwapx8ftkjnhyfxdhgs4hfpkms5r0lhhckrxpzvlxymsdqqxqr4rq9qypqsqsp5edpll2cs9nvwxq2wxpua3phy9c8tgy3ervfvl5wsnpq0qgpxlphsrzjqwryaup9lh50kkranzgcdnn2fgvx390wgj5jd07rwr3vxeje0glc7zwd2yqqn3gqqqqqqqlgqqqqqeqqjqpqmykl4tzhm7rsuvg4uu7ve4ld7jzfqxg82k3faemls8svfug3nh7nzekdcd5x4punkuacwu50zq79s29fuqen4khfu9j7z5585vghgpqs6xca Did this come through OK? It says "Payment Successful", but I don't seem to be able to drill down into the payment in "ZAP" wallet... and there was an error or 2 in the lnd debugging...   When I tried to send again as a test, it says it cannot find a route, so I'm guesssing my channels are not talking to your channels  What's a "good" node to create a channel with these days?  |
|
|
|
There has been a critical update of lnd afaik too so you light want to update before doing a transaction if using that client.
Do you have a reference for this? I only see 0.11.1beta which was released 9 days ago... This marks the first minor release in the v0.11.x series! This release contains no breaking changes, and no database migrations. Instead this release bundles a number of reliability improvements, some macaroon upgrades, and a change to make our version our anchor commitments spec compliant amongst several other changes.
Also, can you provide me an invoice... I don't have any spare capacity to receive at the moment... |
|
|
|
Well, i hope none will forget or ignore the ABC correction pattern and wrongly leave bot in fear.  Looks like it's more of an "ABCD" correction pattern this time around   |
|
|
|
When signing offline transaction are the private keys at any point stored in hardware memory unencrypted as the transaction is signed? Yes, the keys have to, at some point, be "unencrypted", otherwise the system could not possibly use them to sign the transaction. That's why I need to be sure as Electrum signes the file that no unencrypted private keys are stored in the computers hardware as I will be going back online with same computer to broadcast the transaction. Theoretically, after a "hard" restart (ie. power disconnected), the RAM should be, for all intents and purposes, "wiped"... As far as I'm aware, outside of "lab test" type conditions where you can deep freeze the RAM modules and preserve their state for a few minutes after power is removed, there isn't really a viable "attack" to retrieve the contents of RAM once the machine is depowered. Or did you mean "persistent" memory like HDD/SDD? If so, that shouldn't be an issue as the private keys are only kept in RAM for the absolute minimum required amount of time, they're not stored on disk unencrypted unless your wallet file has no password. |
|
|
|
Mine doesn't look like this. Wasn't this only for the old versions pre 4.0.0? I also didn't manually change any settings after installing it. That screenshot is from 4.0.3. Since 4.0.0, I only get the advanced preview by default, where I can set the fee, view my inputs/outputs and click "Sign" or "Broadcast".
Try changing the "advanced preview" option in the settings (Tools -> Preferences -> Transactions). For a "clean" install, the "Advanced Preview" option is off by default... |
|
|
|
The default window when you click "Pay" should look like this:  Note that there is no way to select RBF here... you either have to use the global setting in "Tools -> Preferences -> Transactions":  or click the "Advanced" button on the "Confirm Transaction" dialog and it will open the "Advanced Preview" window and you can set RBF there:  NOTE: You can also set the "Advanced Preview" as the default "Confirm Transaction" dialog by selecting it on the "Tools -> Preferences -> Transactions" screen shown above. |
|
|
|
The safest wallets
...
1. Promote "Wallet X" in sig 2. Tell everyone that Wallets A, B and C are the "safest" 3. ? ? ? 4. Profit   |
|
|
|
There is precisely _zero_ power "burnt per transaction", it's a very easy calculation that does not require estimation.
Just to play "pedant's advocate"... that's not exactly true... A user (or service) will burn power constructing a transaction, they'll burn power broadcasting a transaction, other nodes will burn power receiving/relaying/storing that transaction. One could say that this is the "hidden" cost of Bitcoin... granted, it's probably tiny compared to the costs of power being consumed by mining pools etc... but it's not zero It's like the "cost" of email. As for how you would go about estimating what this cost actually is...  |
|
|
|
People have shown us (multiple times) that you don't need to understand what you are doing. If it works, it works for them.
Until it stops "working" and then they post here wanting to know "What is XYZ?" or "Why did ABC happend?" It's part of the "problem" with Bitcoin I guess... the barrier to entry is actually fairly low as generally all you need is a computer/phone and an internet connection... but the "stakes" are quite high and it's actually quite a complex system which leads to a lot of misunderstanding. Especially because people think of it as "digital money", only it doesn't work like the "money" they're familiar with and get confused.  |
|
|
|
intraderA general statement about market manipulation tactics:
Bittrex actively discourages any type of market manipulation, including pump groups. Consistent with our terms of service, we will suspend and close any accounts engaging in this type of activity and notify the appropriate authorities. Does this mean ending of altcoin pump? I wonder why still trading at bittrex if trading style like traditional forex market, maybe I misunderstood, sorry [ archive ] source https://bittrex.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003004171-What-are-my-trade-limits- In my view, that is more just a poorly referenced quote than plagiarism... the user wasn't attempting to pass the "statement" off as having been created by them... really just (badly) quoting Bittrex's statement and then seeking clarification on what it means... As opposed to trying to report them for plagiarism, I'd be inclined to give them a polite heads-up that the correct way to have done this would be to use [ quote ] tags... to make their post like thus:
A general statement about market manipulation tactics:
Bittrex actively discourages any type of market manipulation, including pump groups. Consistent with our terms of service, we will suspend and close any accounts engaging in this type of activity and notify the appropriate authorities.
Does this mean ending of altcoin pump? I wonder why still trading at bittrex if trading style like traditional forex market, maybe I misunderstood, sorry
|
|
|
|
I did verify Peanutswar had a correct message. This is Peanutswar, OCT 2 2020, bc1qh45r8qdp5zqf5cux77sq0k3gmjdljv4jdac0n0  This means he owns the key. but I recommending he remakes using a common format. No, you didn't verify anything and it doesn't mean he owns the key... Your image is telling you what "address" that message+signature combo would need to be "valid"... however, as the address being "staked" is obviously "bc1qh45r8qdp5zqf5cux77sq0k3gmjdljv4jdac0n0", the screenshot you took is proof of nothing. You can test this yourself... Once you have a "signature", you can put whatever message you want and it will tell you what the "expected" address is... For instance... here is the "demo" address+message+signature: -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is an example of a signed message.
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1HZwkjkeaoZfTSaJxDw6aKkxp45agDiEzN
HHXLKIFZ7LWR5YZ2rbScJ7IMkbPEz58dAVGc38uyGfSEX2mR/tm82QVqSNjcSrgR3MVGhyztU8lTFBgXjmQCDPQ=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Now, I can take that signature, remove the address... and then use any message I like and it will give an address... However, this does NOT "verify" anything.  |
|
|
|
-zapwallettxes fixed it
p.s. just to clarify that deleting mempool.dat was the first thing I tried but it didn't help
Interesting that -zapwallettxes was required... I would not have thought that the transaction from Armory would be "stored" by Bitcoin Core like that. In any case, glad that you managed to get it resolved. |
|
|
|
Deleted mempool.dat
zapwallettxes should only remove transactions in the Bitcoin Core "wallet.dat" itself... this "offline" transaction was sent from Armory via RPC. So it wouldn't be recorded in the Bitcoin Core wallet.dat, so there would be nothing to "zap". Theoretically, deleting mempool.dat should have removed this transaction from Bitcoin Core. It's possible there is something screwy with the Armory databases that the "rebuild and rescan" did not fix. While drastic, and requiring a bit of time to rebuild, you might want to try the "Factory Reset" option in Armory and select the "also delete the databases and rebuild" option:  Then shut down Armory and restart it. That should hopefully purge everything and let you broadcast your transaction. NOTE: Make sure you have a wallet backup before you start! |
|
|
|
The short version is: 1. extract "password hash" from wallet.dat using the "Bitcoin2John" script (refer here: https://github.com/openwall/john/blob/bleeding-jumbo/doc/README.bitcoin) 2. run some sort of bruteforce tool to generate passwords and test them against the extracted hash Most common tools used for Step 2. are: - Hashcat - John The Ripper There is also btcrecover, which will create an extract from the wallet.dat and test passwords against it: https://github.com/gurnec/btcrecover/blob/master/docs/Extract_Scripts.md#usage-for-bitcoin-unlimitedclassicxtcoreAnecdotally, the performance of hashcat seems to be the "best"... I do not know anything about the password of the wallet itself This is going to be the largest obstacle... without any sort of knowledge of the number of characters or the types of characters used (lowercase? UPPPERCASE? numb3r5? symbo!s? whole words? etc) then trying to create rules sets to generate passwords to test could be quite difficult... and the possible keyspace is so large, that the whole process will likely be regarded as "impossible". ... and it is in the public domain (still has bitcoin on it),
Not necessarily. While the addresses listed in the wallet might still have BTC assigned to them, it's quite possible the wallet was modified to insert those specific public keys to make it appear that the wallet contains a large amount of BTC, however the encrypted private keys in the wallet do not actually match these addresses. It's impossible to tell until the encryption key is known. and I am aware that this isn't easy money, but it is worth a shot.
Honestly, it really isn't... you likely have more chance of winning a lottery than cracking one of these "70,000 BTC" type wallets floating around on the internet |
|
|
|
But I'm not sure if u are able to use coin control for sweeping.
I'm confused... why do you want (or think you need) to use "coin control" when sweeping a private key from ChipMixer? what if...
is it possible to sweep with some utxo'es over coin control to gain more privacy if u want to take the sweeping step ?
What exactly are you trying to achieve? The private key provided by ChipMixer for any given "chip" should have exactly one UTXO associated with it... if you're trying to sweep that UTXO while also spending it with other coins that you control, you're effectively removing ALL of the benefits of having used ChipMixer in the first place, as you're linking that "chip" with all the other coins you're trying to spend... I don't see how you think that sweeping a "chip" plus using "coin-control" is going to give you any added privacy??!? It sounds like you're a bit confused on exactly what "sweeping" is... and what "coin control" is useful for... |
|
|
|
And here it is, now I just noticed. ...  Wait... what??!? You only "just" noticed... after 18 months? And why do you care about that trust rating... and not the one from humancoinnet?  In any case, neither of those users is on DT, so the trust ratings aren't visible by default unless you explicitly go looking for it...  I ask myself. Can I apply for this to remove the unfair assessment or is this one big vanity market just If you "on this forum for a while" as you claim, you should already know that "Trust is NOT moderated". The only person who can remove the trust rating is the person who left it. Go PM "wapinter" if you are so concerned about it... |
|
|
|
Just to clarify... Your Electrum adddress is: 1Lw5evKM6BhhRc7AfsxVn1p9rPaP37jCNN ? Or you're saying that all your coins got sent to that address? If "1Lw5ev..." is your address, it looks like your coins along with 577 other UTXOs totalling 17 BTC! (  ) were sent to "bc1q732sq9uttxlxm0t6qqgh6zfy9jz62c7t3qr2ef" |
|
|
|
Paper with QR code might also have been a "paper wallet"... a lot of the paper wallet generators use QR codes for ease of scanning address (and/or importing private key to wallet for redemption)... However, if it has been shredded and tossed, then obviously we'll never know for certain. I know Blockchain can display QR codes when requesting a receive address, and it currently shows them for private keys which were imported to blockchain, but I don't think they ever used them for exporting mnemonic seeds or keys that were generated by their HD wallets... Not sure if they ever showed QR codes for the old old wallets prior to the move to using HD wallets. However, it's been such a long time and blockchain has had so many UI/UX changes that I don't recall if they were used like that. I certainly never personally used them if they did. Given that some of the 12 words are not even in the blockchain "password recovery" list... it's most probably that these 12 words are not even a blockchain recovery phrase, but some other obscure wallet with it's own proprietary recovery system. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
