Your formulation "less than the second hash" makes the second about 14 times more difficult, since there are additional constraints - ...63fbxx vs ...000016 in the first case all 256 possibilities are valid, while in the second about 234 are invalid.
What I get is the highlight is only there to emphasize the non-zero characters of the first hash. If that's not the case, then yes you're correct. |
|
|
|
I highlighted the first 19 characters of each hash with red color to emphasize that the former has random leading characters, but the latter's leading characters are zeroes. So, my question is, what would be more difficult to find, in terms of computational power, a hash with the same 19 random characters like in the first example, or a hash that would be less than the second hash with 19 zeroes? And why?
Both are nearly impossible to find. Since both are representing a 256-bit number, the search space would be too high to have a chance of finding them. And SHA-256 is irreversible. P.S. Obviously, by "finding hash" I mean finding specific inputs which result in specific hashes.
The best search term would be " hash collision".
If you're referring to mining, then the search query is " Bitcoin mining target" ( target). And in terms of mining, the miner is looking for a value lower than the target, not exact. So, since 19270ea4f98808a63fbb99bc26a5ee6f0fe8df9c8182cf1d710b115d57250578 is higher than 000000000000000000016923fc405bbb8e9552072b0905adeb4115706e569bb2, it'll be easier to find a hash that's lower than the former than the latter. |
|
|
|
|
My main concern on this is: People might get an idea of storing a (physical) printed picture in their vault as the backup
and use the original/scanned image file to make a key pair.
Since there's already a physical backup, they might consider deleting the original image.
That wont work since a scanned image wont have the same hash as the original image used to create the key pair.
Every scan will also produce a slightly different image, thus, different hash.
Without the original image file that processed by this tool, users wont be able to recover their funds.
|
|
|
|
Edit: I've no idea what the hell happened to the first image.
The forum has a bug in displaying the first column of the table, the image may look small or if there are rows, tightly compressed. It will show just fine in preview but not in the actual post. The workaround is to add a dummy empty first column [td][/td] in every row, using your example: [center]
[table]
[td][/td]
[td][img]https://i.imgur.com/W9hbTRV.png[/img][/td]
[td][img]https://i.imgur.com/W9hbTRV.png[/img][/td]
[td][img]https://i.imgur.com/W9hbTRV.png[/img][/td]
[/table]
[/center] : [center]
[table]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][img]https://i.imgur.com/W9hbTRV.png[/img][/td]
[td][img]https://i.imgur.com/W9hbTRV.png[/img][/td]
[td][img]https://i.imgur.com/W9hbTRV.png[/img][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td][img]https://i.imgur.com/W9hbTRV.png[/img][/td]
[td][img]https://i.imgur.com/W9hbTRV.png[/img][/td]
[td][img]https://i.imgur.com/W9hbTRV.png[/img][/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
[/center] It's cleaner than adding a whole table inside the first column because this wont add a few pixels between the first and second column. |
|
|
|
-snip- I am wondering how to enable GPU?
Add --enable-gpu argument to your command. That's assuming that you've successfully installed pyopencl and your GPU is supported. note: You can check all available commands by entering: python btcrecover.py -h |
|
|
|
-snip- what if you sweep it?
Others call it " import" but instead of import, " sweep" will automatically send the funds to one of the wallet's address. Or the other way to read it?: BTW, Bitcoin is non-custodial and decentralized - your funds is in your control and there's no central authority that manages bitcoins.
So, even the developers can't refund your bitcoins.
i havent touched it since i made a transfer to the adress. but jokes aside, what if you sweep it? Everyone who told you that it's not recoverable is a suspect, eh? :-X With that reply, I think you get that I'm considering a possibility that the actual issue is: you might have sent it accidentally to an unrecoverable address and looking for some sort of Bitcoin " authority" to refund it. If not, then the second and third posts are still the best answers. |
|
|
|
Here after 2 years, and still no activity on frauds adress :'(
Looks like the culprit is a dedicated ( stolen) BTC hodler, probably waiting for bitcoin to reach the moon. Jokes aside, have you ever tried to " sweep" it to another wallet? Because that's one way that it could be sent to another address which belongs to the wallet where you perform sweep. BTW, Bitcoin is non-custodial and decentralized - your funds is in your control and there's no central authority that manages bitcoins. So, even the developers can't refund your bitcoins. |
|
|
|
2. Can Checksums be used to recover a forgotten data? How?
For address' checksum, there's nothing to recover since the data that's hashed twice is already there. e.g: Decode the address from BASE58 into HEX, the last 4 bytes is the checksum and the rest is the data that was hashed twice. (cannot be applied to bech32)For WIF private key's checksum, it's basically the same ( WIF to Private key). But which data to recover? It's basically the same private key, but in different format. |
|
|
|
The closest thing to 2fa you can have with a non-custodial wallet is a 2-of-2 or 2-of-3 multisignature wallet and you need to keep each signing key on a different device
It is worth mentioning that a 2FA setup with a 2of2 multi-sig scheme is not a good option because of the risk it has. You are basically sharing the custody of your own money with a third party that if they refuse to sign transactions (eg. they could demand KYC first!) you will not be able to spend your money any more. Wasn't khaled talking about non-custodial non-2fa wallet with multi-sig support? ( based from "the closest thing") In which case, instead of using a 2fa authenticator app, the second cosigner will be on that device instead. |
|
|
|
-snip-
I admit I haven't checked this mathematically nor by experiment, but still I'd assume (and may be totally wrong) it unlikely that, as the OP implied, an Electrum mnemonic seed would pass a BIP39 checksum test (by 1/16 chance). Just my gutt fealing, I'm not insisting on it.
Yes, it's possible. Although Electrum's " seed version system" is different from BIP39's checksum, both are using the same wordlist when generating mnemonics. So an Electrum seed has that chance to be a valid BIP39 seed. (electrum doesn't rely on a fixed word list to create a seed but currently uses the same word list as BIP39's)However, if he used v4.1.3 or later versions of Electrum to create the wallet, there's no chance that it'll also be a valid BIP39 seed because they excluded such results when generating seed phrases. https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/pull/6001 |
|
|
|
-snip-
as I had the address saved and the seed too, I thought it would be easy to recover it, but whenever I try to insert the seed to recover the wallet, the next button doesn't work, both in the mobile and windows app.
My guess is you're selecting the wrong option when restoring the seed phrase. Should be in " Standard wallet->I already have a seed" and not in " Import bitcoin addresses or private keys". If not and you're using the correct restore menu, there's something wrong with your seed phrase. When typing the words, try to let Electrum finish each word by selecting the correct word that will show while you're typing. If the word isn't being displayed while you're typing a few characters, chances that it's incorrect is high. Alternatively, see if your seed's words belong to this list: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/electrum/wordlist/english.txt ( use "search") |
|
|
|
|
Add server=1 to your 'bitcoin.conf' file in bitcoin's data directory, restart Bitcoin Core and see if the "Disconnected" notification is gone.
As for the database, let it finish first, and if it doesn't do anything within hours.
Check the logs "Armorylog.txt" and "dblog.txt" in Armory's data directory for errors.
|
|
|
|
Any chance that it's actually a "SecurePrint™" backup instead of unencrypted (just edited)?
What are the colors of Armory's logo in the paper backup? Green+Blue or Red+Blue?
No it's 100% an unecrypted backup, it says it right at the top of the page, it has the armory logo and all the data I gave above. I'm very confused why it doesn't seem to work. How about the logo's color? It's important because the former is an indication that it's a Regtest/Testnet paper backup while the later means that it's for mainnet. The former wont restore the same Wallet ID using that tool and it is essentially worthless aside from testing purposes. |
|
|
|
If I import it into armory, is there anyway to check in armory if the wallet ID is matching?
Yes, it will prompt you to double-check the restored Wallet ID if it matched the one in your backup. No matter what I do, I do not get the same uid as the Wallet ID. I am not sure why.
The tool works at my end; Any chance that it's actually a " SecurePrint™" backup instead of unencrypted ( just edited)? What are the colors of Armory's logo in the paper backup? Green+Blue or Red+Blue? |
|
|
|
|
There shouldn't be any problem with 1sat/B fee as it's follow the standard rules.
It shouldn't be dropped from mempools either since the size haven't reached the default maximum within this past few days.
I think it was just an issue in your connection to Exodus' server at that time.
|
|
|
|
It simply means that it's not in their node's and other nodes' mempool. Since it didn't arrived in your Electrum wallet, then the selected server doesn't have that transaction as well. There can be a lot of reasons but let's start with your Exodus wallet where the transaction is created: try to do a rescan - https://support.exodus.com/article/75-how-do-i-refresh-my-walletSince the transaction isn't in any mempool, it could be removed after a rescan, then you can re-send it again to your Electrum. |
|
|
|
Tried this tool - http://brainwalletx.github.io/ chains tab, armory and put in the 18 4 char alphas in the paper backup text box. This generates addresses but none of them have anything in them (at least not the first 20 and the tool seems to be limited to generating the first 100). That tool should work but it can only generate legacy addresses ( P2PKH), if you've used the other address types in Armory before, then your only option is to use Armory to restore that backup. Note: When copying your root key into that tool, paste it one line at a time or it will restore a wrong wallet. ( 9 set of 4 characters per line - 2 lines like in the backup). -snip-
Is there any chance a different tool is going to come up with some addresses or is this the wrong wallet root key (I definitely have one somewhere that has something)?
There's a great chance that the tool is working as intended if the restored " Wallet ID" is correct, in brainwalletX's Armory tool, it should show up above as " uid: xxxxxxxxx" |
|
|
|
I see got around 15000 reachable bitcoin node. https://bitnodes.ioHow to check if my node is 1 of the 15000? Use the " Check Node" button under 'Join the network'. Your IP Address should be automatically detected but if not, manually type it along with the correct port. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
