Have you read Lauda's response? I agree with Lauda, the download speed is probably NOT the bottleneck, and download the blocks via torrent is not a good idear and no longer recommanded.

At this moment, your wallet is downloading each block, verifying if the block header's hash is under the target at that moment in time, verifying each transaction in the block, building a merkle tree, updating the UTXO set,... These things take a lot of CPU cycles, disk IO and memory...
Downloading the blockchain over torrent will only cut back on the download time, and since you download at 10 Mb/second, this is not the bottleneck.

You're free to create your trustlist any way you want, but do you honestly think you'll be making this forum a better place by distrusting some really good people just because they trust somebody that red tagged your alt and putting people in trustlists that have no place being there?
I personally think that if you find sufficient people to support your idear, you'll be making the forum a much worse place, cause there'll be hundreds of scammers that lose their red tags and are free to start scamming again.

I have included Lauda and TMAN in my trustlist a long time ago because

• I think they have a net positive result to the forum
• I would trusts them to hold (part of) my funds

I overlooked owlcatz, but i have now added him...

I will not be coerced to remove these people from my list for the mere purpose of getting excluded from your scheme.

Anyways, it's your right to try this...

I'm not following your train of toughts here...
The transaction fee is not paying the developers, the miner can add the sum of all transaction fees of all transactions he put in the block he's trying to solve to the current block reward. The wallet developer or maintainer gets nothing.
There have been a couple secure wallets in the past that charged a small fee (not a mining fee) for using their wallet (multibit HD), but nowadays i don't think any truely vetted community supported wallet still charges a fee.

Also, if you're using a wallet where a thirth party is keeping your funds, do yourself a favour and migrate to a decent wallet straight away.

Well, i didn't open the webpage with a browser... I fetched the main page using curl, then used vi (a text editor) to read the sourcecode... It's always possible i missed the redirect script (the sourcecode is filled with references to electrum.org, so it would be easy to miss a redirect script).

I don't think the two domains are owned by ThomasV, I don't think he has more than 1 domain dedicated to electrum (altough i'm not sure), also, the two domains use different registrars... I can honestly say that i have always stuck to one registrar, and i would find it weird if ThomasV would have used 2.

To bad you can't open the link... The short version is pretty simple: somebody is trying to link a couple of services together and atomicwallet is one of them. There have been some accusations floating around against some of the services the poster is trying to link together.
It's not conclusive proof, so i wouldn't call them a scam right away... I'd just advice to be carefull.

When you pick a wallet, these are the options from safest to unsafest... There might be some discussion about which of the top-4 wallets is the most secure, but if you pick one of the top-4 you *should* be secure enough:

• [very secure]An airgapped installation of a recent version of bitcoin core, non-HD on a clean *NIX OS (or windows if you know what you're doing). Do think about your backup strategy tough!
• [very secure]An airgapped installation of electrum or bitcoin core HD on a clean *NIX OS (or windows if you know what you're doing)
• [very secure]A well-known hardware wallet (trezor and ledger pop to mind)
• [very secure]A properly generated paper wallet (it's not that easy to generate a paper wallet in the right way)
• [reasonable secure]A wellknow, opensource desktop wallet on a CLEAN PC (virusscanner, firewall, updates,...). I prefer *NIX as OS: electrum (warning: a lot of phising versions are floating around), bitcoin core, armory, knots. It's safe to say that in my honest opinion, wallets like atomicwallet are NOT falling in this category...
• [unsecure]online wallets, exchange wallets, casino wallets

If you're downloading wallet software, it's always a good idear to check the signatures. For example: lately it seems a lot of phising sites looking like electrum.org popped up, and several people downloaded a fake wallet and lost funds. Since you're working with open source wallets, it's not that hard for an attacker to edit the sourcecode and influence the RNG or install a phone-home function, then recompile the wallet and distribute their infected wallet that looks 100% like a legit one... The only thing you can do is keep checking where you download your wallet and keep checking signatures.

In your case, it might be a good idear to look at ledger and trezor, for about ~$100 you can purchase a hardware wallet that should protect you against most attack vectors... An added bonus is that they usually support several (alt)coins, altough i doubt your specific portfolio will be 100% supported by one hardware wallet.

You shouldn't be to hard on yourself, and don't start victim-blaming... Sure, you made a mistake and lost some funds. I hope your losses weren't that big. If it was only a small amount, you should consider it to be a tuition fee. You're not the culprit here, you're the victim. Sure, you should have payed better attention and kept your system clean, but you're only human (like 90% of the other users on this forum), it's fair to say that mistakes will be made by about anybody from time to time (you just got unlucky).


Not impossible, but highly unlikely... It would have been reported by a lot of people instead of just one person.



I fetched the main page from the fake site and opened it in vi, i couldn't see any redirection in the sourcecode... I don't know why your browser keeps redirecting, but i would consider it to be a sign that your system isn't 100% clean and it might be a good idear to take backups of your important files and scratch the system, then wait a couple of weeks, update your virusscanner on your fresh os and scan the backups before starting to use them.

I started by searching the forum for atomicwallet and i dug up this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5026942.0

AFAIK, it's only an investigation, not a scam accusation... It all seems a bit circumstantial to me aswell, but it might be worth reading about.

Good luck!

It's all hindsay at the moment, nothing we tell you will help you recover your funds... However... If it was me who had had this problem, I wouldn't just assume my system was clean and install a fresh wallet after something like this happened.

I'd either keep scanning my system untill the malware was found and i was 100% sure it was removed, or (even better) i'd scratch my system and completely reinstall the OS. It's bad system hygiene to install any unknown apps, plugins,... on a system you use for managing your finances.

If you're really serious about crypto, i'd recommand to either buy a hardware wallet, start using paper wallets that have been created 100% offline or start using an airgapped machine for signing transactions.

As an answer to your first question: posting transactionid's and addresses does not compromise your wallet. However, if you post transactionid's and addresses, you do have to realise you'll be losing a bit of your anonimity

As an answer to your second question: you're right, theoretically this subforum is not really for problems with alternative wallets, "Bitcoin Forum > Bitcoin > Development & Technical Discussion > Alternative clients might" be a better subforum

It would be easyer if we knew the transaction id...

But anyways, if you looked up the transaction on a block explorer, and the block explorer states that the output funding your address was spent, it means that the output was spent... So somebody (maybe you, maybe a hacker, maybe the owner of atomic wallet) has spent the unspent output funding "your" address...

I have never used atomic wallet myself, but these are the things that might have happened:

• Atomic wallet might be web wallet (or at least has web wallet functionality), and doesn't let you controll your own private keys. In this case, they might have presented you with a "private" funding address, but once funded they just credited your account and spent the unspent output while still crediting your account... In this case, there's nothing wrong. Some (very bad) online wallets just work this way. The odds of this are not good tough..
• Atomic wallet can also be a scam...
• You might have downloaded a fake wallet
• Your pc can be infected
• I don't know atomic wallet, but in case they presented you with a recovery seed or an option to backup keys or wallets, your backup might have been compromised and somebody has access to your seed, xprv or private key(s)

If the output funding your address wasn't spent, the wallet might also be out of sync, but this option can be ignored since you clearly stated the output has been spent.

The browser shouldn't matter... Unless you installed malicious plugins on your browser the downloaded file should be exactly thesame.

Like joniboini already said: you should always check the signature of your wallet.

I agree with joniboini's analysis, and i'd say that you either:

• Downloaded a malicious version of electrum
• Have an infected pc (a virusscanner isn't 100% guarantee)
• Have leaked your recovery seed, xpvr or individual private keys
• Made a transfer yourself, or maybe somebody else with access to your pc made the transfer

Just think about it... Let's imagine you have an ASIC farm, and you have 2 options:

1) mine, hodl or exchange and pocket 100% of the income (aka running a mining farm)
OR
2) sell contracts, mine, substract some maintenance and divide the income to the people that bought contracts (aka running a cloudmining company)

There are only 2 reasons for picking option 2:
1) The amount of income of contracts and maintenance fees is higher than the income of mining directly. In other words, your "investors" won't make any money
2) You don't want to risk anything, so you cover all your risk by selling shares of your equipment and make your users pay maintenance cost. In this case, your users *can* make a profit, but they carry 100% of the risks for a very small part of the profit.

Neither of these situations sound good to me...

Wow... I had stepped away from this thread, and it derailed once again... I know i said i'd step away, but when faced with this much misinformation, i couldn't help myself and add yet another reply. I've read the last ~10 replies and tried to correct the errors.

From now on, i'm going to start putting people on ignore that post nonsense.

You're mixing up bitcoin and ethereum. Gas fee = Ethereum terminology
Next to this, creating a transaction with 0 fee has no effect on the miners, they'll mine empty blocks (only including the coinbase transaction) if they have to. Also, it's possible to make a transaction with 0 fee, as i've proved many times in this very thread. Wallet and exchange developers do NOT make money on the transaction fees, exchanges usually charge deposit, exchange and withdrawal fees, but that's usually completely offchain.

Nope... The user makes a transaction, broadcasts it to a node, which relays it to more nodes untill it reaches a node run by a miner. A miner just collects those transactions, verifies them (again) and adds them to the block he's trying to solve (at least, if it makes economical sense for him to do so... Blocksize is limited)

If you use the console of bitcoin core, you can do whatever you want (fee-wise). Even 0 fee



Nope... The fees are NOT payed to the developers. A miner can add the sum of the fees of all transactions he put in the block he's trying to solve to the current block reward funding his own address. The developers get nothing

Regarding wasabiwallet, if i'm not mistaking, they're using coinjoin.

In a non-technical way, coinjoin is basically "combining" transactions. 

Without coinjoin:
Me => pays => Bob
Alice => pays => Ben
Tom => pays => Burt

With coinjoin:
Me, Alice and Tom => pay => Bob, Ben and Burt

This method improves anonimity, but it's not really the same as a mixer:
My "public" wallet => pays => mixing service
mixing service => pays => my private wallet

With coinjoin, there's still a direct link between Me and Bob, Alice and Ben, Tom and Burt. The thing is that by combining transactions, we've made it harder for people to analyse them. When using a mixer, there should be no link between the deposit and the withdrawal.

A "classic" mixer isn't that hard.

Basically, you need a hot wallet, potentially with -walletnotify and -blocknotify  and use the json-rpc interface to create a new deposit address. Build a frontend to show this new deposit address and a session key to your customer, if you want to you can let him chose a fee, multiple withdrawal addresses, a timeout,... You can even let him/her enter previous session key(s) to make sure he doesn't receive funds he deposited at an earlyer session.

Either use the walletnotify and blocknotify scripts or run a cronjob every x minutes to check if the address is funded and has sufficient confirmations.

Once the address is funded, and has sufficient confirmations, you can call a script that uses the json-rpc interface lockunspent and listlockunspent to lock/unlock unspent outputs you do not want to use when paying your customer. Lock the unspent output that funds the deposit address, then use sendtoaddress to pay the receiver. Once the client has been payed, make sure to update your relational database record to reflect the payment has been made (or even better, delete the record after payment).

Offcourse, the "payment" script can have a lot more intelligence if you want to, you can delay payments, group payments, if you have txindex or addressindex, you can even start digging into the unspent output and lock unspent outputs that can be tied to the initial funding transaction, you can try to find out which addresses should belong to the same wallet, you can lock unspent outputs for any reason. Just make sure you unlock the unspent outputs after each "order" has been completed.

The big "downside" of running a mixer is that you need a huge hotwallet, you need a lot more funds in your hotwallet than the maximum amount you're willing to mix. Also, you need to make sure all traces are removed (logs, records,...), you have to make sure everything is kept on encrypted disks, you have to make sure TLS is used,...

I would defenately go for a 3 server setup:
A "dumb" frontend server
A database server
A backend server with the hot wallet, and the payment script

All communication between the 3 machines should go over TLS, all data in the database should be encrypted (potentially PGP, with a dedicated private key for each machine, and distributed public keys). You can even put the database machine on an unrouted VLAN, so it cannot be accessed from the web directly.

If you didn't spend the ~0.32 BTC input that funded address 3GHTNBPcmeBioGGJiVGsSAZHNsmwGTiPmo in transaction 7414460b7e1daa35ed4c2955f12a647863abc8c50e21a8adf5a13babf8179bcd, you just lost 0.32 BTC i'm afraid.
There are a couple fake electrum versions floating around the net, so you either downloaded a fake wallet, your computer is infected with malware or somebody has access to your recovery seed, xprv or the private key that was used to calculate address 3GHTNBPcmeBioGGJiVGsSAZHNsmwGTiPmo
Older versions of electrum have a vulnerability that would allow a hacker to steal your funds if you visit an infected webpage while electrum is running an unencrypted wallet, but this vulnerability was fixed a long time ago...

Why do i get the gut feeling you're just a payed shill (or the owner) of the website you posted?

If you're legit, Royse777 already answered your question: go to a local bank, go to a pawn shop, go to your family, go to your friend, go to your boss to get an advance for your paycheck,...

okay, but that doesn't really answer my questions... So i'll repeat them:
1) which wallet are you using
2) are you sure address "3GHTNBPcmeBioGGJiVGsSAZHNsmwGTiPmo" belongs to your wallet

It's a m00t point tough, like bernardos already found out: the funds funding your wallet address in tx 7414460b7e1daa35ed4c2955f12a647863abc8c50e21a8adf5a13babf8179bcd were already spent and the spending tx was included 2 blocks ago... There are 3 options:
1) you're using some kind of web wallet that just generates a deposit address for their hot wallet, tracks incoming transaction and keeps an internal database of funds attached to your username
2) the problem was fixed, and you already sent the funds somewhere else
3) you were hacked... Either you have a copy/paste virus, somebody has your wallet seed, your web wallet credentials were hacked (phised),...

This transaction has 34 confirmations, if it's not showing up in your wallet, there must be something wrong with either your wallet, or the address you gave to your friend.

1) which wallet are you using
2) can you doublecheck that the address 3GHTNBPcmeBioGGJiVGsSAZHNsmwGTiPmo is generated as a deposit address by your wallet

yes... In a way, especially if you use linux. But probably not in the way you're thinking.

- create 1 partition on each disk, type LVM
- create a volume group including the two disks
- create a new logical volume, 2 stripes, mountpoint /home/youruser/.bitcoin

There's also the option of setting up a raid setup.