Can you tell me what sounds good when i initially explained btcrecover in this very thread.. Here is how i explained the OP's odds:


And i still stand by my words... I have used btcrecover on my own wallets in the past, but i had a relatively decent idear about what my password might have been... I clearly stated that if the OP has no clue, and he chose a relatively strong password, his odds are very, very, very small... And i don't know about any "tricks" that make password recovery for an encrypted core wallet any easyer... Sure, you can use other, more performant, tools, but it'll always be brute forcing...

This transaction was included in a valid block about 9 days ago, since then it has +5000 confirmations... If an online wallet provider tells you that this transaction is unconfirmed, they're lying.

I've never heared about an unspent wallet... There are unspent outputs funding an address whose private key you controll, but afaik there is no think like an "unspent wallet".
You can use those unspent outputs funding addresses you controll to create new transactions funding an address from coinbase... Is this what you want to say? In this case, my initial answer is still correct. If the transaction you posted is the one you created to fund a coinbase address, and coinbase is not crediting your account, you either copied the wrong address, or coinbase's wallet is not sync'ed (or they're having some other kind of technical problem)

If you used the same wallet to create transactions funding "other wallet" and "coinbase", the same algorithm should have been used to calculate the fee, so there should be no technical difference between those transactions.... Ofcourse, there's always a chance one of the transactions contained dust outputs or the fee calculation contained a bug so one of the transactions is technically different from the others.

Are you sure the transaction is actually unconfirmed, and it's not just coinbase's wallet that's out of sync?

But, in the end, the only way we can actually diagnose what went wrong is if you share transaction id's... Sharing txid's is not harmfull security-wise, but it can reduce your anonimity...

Mooi gezegd,
Ben het er volledig mee eens, als ShopemNL deze dienst zou aanbieden zou ik er enkel van gebruik maken als hij onder de prijs van de huidige sellers zou gaan én toch evenveel kwaliteit en betrouwbaarheid zou bieden... Het lijkt me idd wel niet zo bijzonder moeilijk om deze dienst aan te bieden, ik weet bijvoorbeeld dat bitgild niet zelf over een stock beschikt maar gewoon een reseller is van een betrouwbare duitse aanbieder dewelke geen cryptomunten aanneemt.

As far as i know, paypal is a licenced credit institution... I'm no lawyer, but my best bet would be that faking a name when opening an account would be some sort of fraud... Worst case scenario you could probably end up in jail for faking a name when opening a paypal account...

Best case scenario they'll probably lock your account and demand KYC documents so you can prove you're the person who initially opened the account... Which is impossible since you faked the details.

Don't want to give your real name? Stay away from paypal...

Just my 2 satoshi's.

Ik ben al een tijdje klant bij bitgild (geen grote aankopen hoor, maar zo nu en dan enkele grammetjes)... Mij maakt het eigenlijk niet uit in welke vorm goud/zilver bij me aankomt, zolang de verkoper maar eerlijk en betrouwbaar is, het metaal zo zuiver mogelijk is en de  prijs zo kort mogelijk tegen de huidige spot price aanzit.
Persoonlijk zou ik nooit 18 of 22 kr goud kopen...

In praktijk komt dit voor zilver vooral neer op munten aangezien die belastingsvrij zijn, voor goud meestal op goudbaren...

Indeed, or to give a link to the rules:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0

OP: i advice you to read rule #25

You're basically asking how to make a paper wallet... In this case, i'd say to use https://www.bitaddress.org/ . I have no idear why you'd chose an online wallet like blockchain.com to create a paper wallet, that's really not what they're designed for.


If you create a paper wallet, follow following steps for maximum security:

• DOWNLOAD their sourcecode (at this moment, the latest version of their sourcecode can be downloaded from https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org/archive/v3.3.0.zip , But you shouldn't trust anybody that shoves a link in your face and surf to bitaddress.org yourself and find a link to the lastest version of their sourcecode)
• disconnect from the internet
• unpack the sourcecode, open the index page
• create a paper wallet (bip38 encrypted), print it on a directly attached printer... Make several copies
• Reboot the printer + PC before you even attempt to reconnect from the internet
• Laminate the paper wallet(s) and store them in multiple dry, dark, cool, physically protected places (like a banksafe)... If a fire destroys your house, you still need to have a copy of the paper wallet in order to access your funds

You can always try to setup https://github.com/gurnec/btcrecover or pay somebody to write you a walktrough on how to get btcrecover running... That way you can controll the recovery process yourself, it's never a good idear to send a wallet.dat to a thirth party.

If you chose this path, make sure you (or the person writing the walktrough) read this section in particular: https://github.com/gurnec/btcrecover/blob/master/docs/GPU_Acceleration.md

BTW: there is no magic trick for recovering a wallet.dat password. It's basically always brute-forcing, so the easyer your password was, or the more you know about your password, the higher the odds it can be recovered. If you picked a strong password and you have no clue as to what it might be (or contain), the odds of recovering a password are very, very, very small, even if you use a "professional" recovery service.

Well, the newbie jail should be patrolled... So if a newbie asks a legitimate question, the newbie could be let out of jail and his topic can be moved to the correct subforum... We like people that ask legitimate questions, they don't belong in jail..

Sure, it's a drawback, but i still think it would beat the system of letting them roam free and then send in the moderators to remove their shitpost from every nook and cranny of the forum after they have already caused damage to good threads...

Well... It's not *only* the money that has been spent... On numerous occasions, Theymos has also given a statement that just upgrading SMF wouldn't be possible/feasible since he rewrote a lot of the current SMF sourcecode so a straightup upgrade would no longer work (i'm just to lazy to find the correct reference link).

It's not really censorship.. They can still post, but they're confined to a subforum whose posts aren't listed on the main page... A non-newbie could still visit the subforum or use the searchfunction to find the posts made by the jailed newbies.

As for the workload: the mods are already playing whack-a-mole with these spammers/scammers... They only difference is that these spammy posts would be confined to 1 single subforum, thus decreasing the amount of effort for mods (at least, that's my pov)

But since Theymos already said he would't re-introduce newbie jail is't merely a philosophical discussion anyways

To bad
Sure, they would spam newbie jail, but the only people they'd bother would be other newbies that are still in jail instead of everybody.

The shadowbanning might actually be a good idear, i like it 

I'd like to propose (once again) to re-institute newbie jail... I know it's unfriendly, i know it discourages new users from joining our community... But i'm in favor of a newbie jail opposed to evil points because i guess most "real" newbies would rather make a couple good posts and be let out of jail opposed to paying a "fine" just because they share an ip block with a spammer...


I know this has been discussed quite a few times in the distant past, but today i saw a lot of my historic, technical, posts getting bumped by scammers and i got so frustrated i wanted to vent... So bare with me
I have opened a new topic since the historic ones discussing newbie jail are quite old, and the circumstances *might* have changed since then...


To give you an idear about how bad it currently is, i decided to analyse the last 200!!! posts from the patrol page:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190514091449/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=recent;patrol

I've assigned a label to each and every of the last 200 posts and counted them (the label was attached according to my gut feeling, some labels might be open to discussion):




I've found 9 posts out of 200 (that's less than 5%) posts containing ANY value, and only 2 posts (that's 1% that would have triggered me to give a reply if i would have been interested in the topic that was being discussed). This signal to noise ratio is plain bad... Whatever tool the mods are using is clearly insufficient... I know, the mods are doing what they can, they do a lot of good, but i wondered if it wouldn't be better to just lock up the newbies untill they've proven their merits, that way the mods can concentrate on moderating "real" members instead of nuking spammers and scammers.

I don't even think the rules should be that strict... Register a new account => newbie jail (a subforum whose posts are not shown on the main page "by default").
Gain 1 merit => get out of jail
Pay a fee => get out of jail
Convince a moderator by asking a real question => moderator moves your post to the correct subforum and lets you out of jail
Convince 3 sr+ members to let you out of jail => get out of jail
...

I know, i know... It has been done, it has been discussed, the new forum is coming, there are drawbacks to the system, it'll be a lot of work for the mods, some members might never get out of jail, non-english speakers will have a disadvantage,... But these spammers/scammers are ruining our community and i think the energy that will be put into filtering out the few good newbies that deserve to get out of jail will be less than the energy of finding these nonsense posts in all subforums scattered all over the place

Well... everybody is saying that IF the miners would try to do a re-org, nobody would be able to stop them.

However, there is always the possiblity of adding a checkpoint.
If most full nodes (including all mining nodes that weren't payed off by binance) would add a checkpoint
( 575955, uint256("0x0000000000000000001e43f03c821f0d95d0ea8a2f09bf9e1a53deba0e34eb18")) they would not accept the "new" chain (the chain not including the thief's transaction).

I'm pretty sure that if 75% of the nodes would add this checkpoint, the discussion about a reorg would stop right away... The beauty is that this could be done at any moment. The downside is that you have to find a way to convince 75% of the full nodes to add the checkpoint to begin with (that being said, a checkpoint can be added to older versions of core aswell, people would not need to upgrade their existing nodes, just add a checkpoint and recompile)

In this case, following options are available to you:

• wait it out, keep rebroadcasting the transaction and hope for the best
• do a cpfp (you did not answer the question as to which wallet you use, so i cannot piont you to a walktrough on how to create a cpfp with your wallet)
• pay a pool operator or use viabtc like LoyceV suggested (do be carefull not to get scammed... Only pay BIG pools, not somebody that claims to own a pool or says he'll mine the transaction himself)

If you keep in contact with the sender, you can always ask him if he can do a cpfp, since there are 2 outputs i guess he did send some change back to himself...

I'll be AFK for most of the weekend, starting in about 10 minutes, but there'll probably be other people willing to help you out...

Good luck

OK... Well, the person that created this tx did not opt-in RBF...

However, you did not answer the rest of my questions

A lot of people have given pretty good advice already... The wallet you used to create the transaction doesn't really matter (except some wallets automatically opt-in RBF, and some are better at estimating fees), the wallet used to create the address that was funded is certainly not important.

The only things that matter:

• What is the fee
• Was the transaction RBF
• Does the transaction contain dust outputs

As for your last question, fees fluctuate pretty heavily when the price is on the rise. You basically have to outbid other transactions in order to get a place in a block a miner is currently trying to solve... If your transaction has 58 sat/byte, and at this moment the top 1Mb transactions in the mempool have ~90sat/byte fees, the odds of your transaction ending up in a block are small.

• Either wait it out and hope more +58 sat/byte fee transactions end up in blocks than new +58 sat/byte fee transactions get broadcasted
• Or do a rbf (if the transaction is opt-in RBF and you either are the sender, or the sender is willing to do a rbf)
• If you're the receiver, or if you're the sender and you sent change back to your own address do a CPFP
• or you can wait a while and just double spend the inputs used for the stuck transaction (if you're the sender)
• or use a free tx accelerator
• or pay a big pool operator to include your tx in the block he's trying to solve... DO NOT pay some random dude who says he'll mine the transaction for you... That's just not how this works

If you want advice tailored to your situation, i/we do need some more info:

• the transaction id (giving a tx id is not dangerous, but it does decrease your privacy)
• are you the sender or the receiver
• what are your technical skills (would you be able to manually create a transactions if we tried talking you trough the procedure)
• which wallet are you using (if you use an old wallet, giving this info might actually be harmfull, but giving the general "brand" should be sufficient and pretty harmless

There's a big chance you're right and the thieves do not exchange the stolen funds for fiat for many years... That being said, i'm pretty sure i'd be able to completely "wash" 7000 BTC if i'd had a couple of months and was allowed to "lose" 10-20% on various fees. It's basically a matter of splitting up those huge outputs in smaller chunks, then wash them by using multiple different techniques and services on each of those chunks whilst always using a combination of privacy techniques to make sure you never get your real ip or other digital fingerprint recorded on any of the services you use to "clean" your illgotten gains.

I do realise you'd really have to have a welldrawn plan in order to make the washing seem completely random so nobody can just start analysing the blockchain and pinpoint you... And if you do slipup you'll probably end up in jail... But i don't think it's impossible if you keep your focus and know what you're doing.

Disclaimer: Eventough i'm pretty sure i'd be able to do this, i'm not offering my services to anybody... If you contact me to help you clean stolen funds, i'll probably report you to the authorities...