That's kinda my point, you don't need to "roll your own" anything... there are already libraries in most of the popular languages that do it all for you and they're all linked in the BIP39 spec: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039.mediawiki#other-implementations

And what if the OP doesn't use Linux?

All joking aside, the BIP39 spec isn't really there to provide implementation specific commands etc, but more of a high level description of the process involved. It's left up to the user to decide how they actually want to go about implementing the spec.

It's all specific use-case dependent.

You actually believe trust ratings left by game-protect??!? Oh wait... you also believe all the things that Craig Wright says... riiiiiight, OK. Well, have fun with that!

That is relatively normal... you'd need to scroll down a LONG way, like several hundred lines to find all the actual key data... The fact that it is finding "keymeta" data is a good sign... it means that it is actually a likely to be a wallet.dat file. It doesn't guarantee that it's not totally corrupted or the key data isn't encrypted, but it is a good starting point!


That simply means that python is missing a couple of libraries that can make it decrypt wallet data "faster"... but are not required if the wallet files have no password. It can generally be ignored.


This generally happens with "new" wallet files that were updated/created using newer versions of Bitcoin Core... it added some database records to the wallet.dat files that PyWallet does not understand  There are ways around that, but it involves editing Python code, which I feel may be beyond you


This happens when the wallet file specified using --wallet:
1. Does not actually exist
or
2. Is corrupted
or
3. Is already open and "locked" by Bitcoin Core
or
4. Is not actually a valid Bitcoin Core/bitcoind generated wallet.dat


Because you're getting into "non-standard" wallet manipulation territory... They were not designed to be easy to just randomly extract data from... they were designed to work with bitcoind/Bitcoin Core... When things go "wrong" and the wallet files get corrupted, things unfortunately become "difficult" if you're not familiar with commandline scripts etc.


Yes and no... if your wallet files are indeed from 2014 and haven't been "upgraded" to newer formats by newer versions of Bitcoin Core, Pywallet should work with them "OK".


This is a "Bad Idea"™  You'll likely get a lot of PMs from a lot of dubious characters asking for wallet.dat's and passwords (or asking for TeamViewer/Remote access etc) who'll promise you the earth and then just steal your coins

Be VERY careful whom you trust here!

Not sure why you're thanking me. Don't mistake my post as any sort of validation for your arguments regarding Bitcoin, Bitcoin SV and/or Craig Wright. I don't agree with anything you have said regarding those topics... and I don't disagree with what BitcoinGirl.Club said in that post.

I was merely stating that the post itself was off-topic in that thread and was rightfully deleted.


No. Why would you tag them for an off-topic post? Deleting (or reporting) the post is the correct response... and this has already happened. Therefore, no further action is required.

Playing devil's advocate...

Technically, I agree with their decision to delete your post, as it was off-topic. You were not discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of Bitcoin SV with regards to speculation... you were simply pointing out the Bitcointalk trust ratings of the topic creator (who has nothing to do with the development of BSV).

Note that this might take a while at the current time, as the network is quite busy again with 40,000+ unconfirmed transactions

Like I said, as far as I know, this has never happened... YET.


No. It is not OK... EVER. What if the one time you download and use it without verifying, is 5 minutes after the server got hacked for the first time?

"Don't Trust, VERIFY"

That error message is because the wallet file version has been updated to a newer version. Newer versions of Electrum can make subtle changes to the format of the wallet file that cause problems with older versions of Electrum, so to prevent this, a version number is stored within the wallet file itself. If the version number of the wallet file is greater than what the version of Electrum is expecting, it will generate that error.

Specifically, it is the "seed_version" value stored in the wallet file:





If that had happened, it would be all over this forum.

And that is why verifying the file is the best solution... it doesn't matter where you download the file from, if the digital signature checks out, the file is "OK"... and if hackers somehow did hack the server and put a malicious version on the official site, the digital signature verification would fail and everyone would know it was bad.

---

TLDR; If you don't want to use Electrum, uninstall it... if you do want to use Electrum, update it to the latest version (AFTER verifying the downlaoded installer)... verification is not difficult and does not take long.

No... as I read it, OP tried to buy a "verified with full documents" Skrill account... and, unsurprisingly, got ripped off...

I probably shouldn't be, but I am constantly amazed at how willing people are to attempt to buy someone else's identity... they're basically supporting the identity theft "industry"

No. There is no way you can damage the cable. It doesn't have any microchips or anything like that in it. It is simply an electrical conduit.

The cable that comes with the Ledger is nothing "special". It is not a proprietary cable. It is a "standard" micro-USB data cable with the Ledger logo printed on it Micro-USB cables are fairly cheap and relatively ubiquitous, although they are slowly being replaced by USB Type-C cables as more and more devices move to the new standard.


Do whatever you like with the old Nano S... it really doesn't matter at this point as you've successfully recovered your wallet using a new Nano S device.

I just tried this on Ubuntu 18.04... At first, nothing seemed to happen after entering the password, but then after a second or two, I see this:



It's possible that you are missing some libraries that are required for generating the GPG key... it might pay to try creating it on the command line, so you can see any errors generated... open a terminal window and type:

Then follow the instructions... note that it might take quite a while (as in minutes) once it says:


But eventually you should see something like:


And the key should be automatically added to the list in the "Passwords and Keys" application as well:

Does it really matter?

Ledger have made multiple changes to the UI over the last year or so... The layout of the PIN screen definitely changed at some point, but I can't remember exactly when.

It used to look like this:



Now it looks like this:

Yes, obviously... as you can see all your coins.


Do you even read what I write?




Correct. That would be a pointless exercise and a waste of time and sats

You might also want to try using the "Write logs to file" option in "Tools -> Preferences -> General":



The log files will be generated in the "%AppData%\Electrum\logs" folder. Hopefully, it will show the error causing Electrum to be unable to connect to your TOR proxy.

If you want to use a "Native Segwit" account with "bc1" addresses going forward, then leave it checked, otherwise uncheck it. It makes no difference, you will be able to add/remove that account as you wish in the future... and it does not affect your "SegWit" account where all your coins are.


Like I already said:

Or you can totally reset Ledger Live by going to: Settings -> Help -> Reset Ledger Live

And click the big red "Reset" button:



That basically just deletes all the app data and makes Ledger Live like a completely new, clean install again. Again, this is 100000000% safe and will not delete any of your coins etc

Ok... here goes...

1. Delete all the accounts in Ledger Live - This is 1000000000% "safe"
2. Connect and unlock your Nano S
3. Re-add accounts for your coins (BTC, BCH etc) in Ledger Live

Notes:
- "Existing" accounts are ones where Ledger has detected transaction history and/or balance.
- "New Accounts" have NO transaction history.
- Ledger Live might attempt to add "Legacy" (1-type), "SegWit" (3-type) and "Native SegWit" (bc1-type) BTC accounts. This is PERFECTLY NORMAL.




Legacy will probably only show up if it actually detects transaction history/balance in Legacy addresses. Otherwise, it will be "ignored" and default to offering to add "Segwit" or "Native SegWit" accounts. Ledger explains what they mean by these two terms here: https://www.ledger.com/academy/difference-between-segwit-and-native-segwit

Quoted and verified using electrum: https://talkimg.com/images/2023/11/15/zYgBG.png

If you never used "bc1" (aka Native SegWit) addresses... then it stands to reason that your "Native SegWit" account will be 0 BTC

You don't need to add accounts, if you're just restoring the device and already had Ledger Live setup and have been using it previously with a device that was using the same seed etc... Everything should "just work".

Ledger Live splits out all the address types into different accounts...

So there could potentially be a "Legacy" account (with 1-type addresses if you have been using it prior to segwit)... "Nested SegWit" ("3-type" addresses, which Ledger Live just calls "SegWit") and/or "Native Segwit" ("bc1" addresses).

If the seed wasn't the same as your old one, then it would have found "different" Legacy/Nested accounts... given it only attempted to add the "Native SegWit", then the others are likely OK... If you want to double check, simply delete all the accounts in Ledger Live, then try to re-add them... It'll rescan everything for you.