What exactly are you attempting to "validate"? Simply that it is a "valid" seed? Or that it generates a known AddressXYZ?

As the previous poster mentioned... running Electrum offline and using the seed there (would probably need to use "Options -> BIP39 seed" on the seed entry screen) is an option. You could also download the "iancoleman" Mnemonic Code Converter and run that offline... it has instructions at the bottom of the page.


While it is possible to create a Bitcoin Core wallet from a seed... it is NOT possible to use a seed mnemonic... It's important to note the differences... a "Seed" is technically just a very, large, random number... while a seed mnemonic is the 12/24 words.

Unfortunately, over the years... "seed" and "seed mnemonic" have been used somewhat interchangeably, which leads to confusion


There is a sethdseed command in Bitcoin Core:
But you need to note that the "seed" used here is NOT a 12/24 word seed mnemonic... it is of the "very large random number" variety.


If you have a "12 word" seed mnemonic... then your best chance of recovering anything is using a BIP39 compatible wallet like Electrum.


If it is 12 English words... and you're sure that its 10 years ago... then I have no idea... BIP39 was from 2013... Electrum was originally 2011... what is the exact timeframe you are working with?

Unsure about ElectrumX or EPS... but with electrs (and debug level set to "Trace") I cannot see any obvious hardware ID that is passed through from Electrum... Of course, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", so that doesn't necessarily mean it's not there, just that it's not being displayed or debugged by the electrs server software.

Additionally, I think you might be looking in the wrong place to start with... you would probably be better hunting through the Electrum client code to see if the deviceID is even being read/used by Electrum itself... after all, it can't pass the deviceID to a server if it doesn't have it.

Perhaps ask on the Electrum github if the Trezor (or any hardware wallet) device ID is being read by the client when you attach it.

Bitcoin Core does not, and never has, used 12 word seeds... if you have a 12 word seed, it was not created with Bitcoin Core.


NOTE: There was a scam clone of Bitcoin Core that supposedly had a "12 word seed recovery phrase" that would be emailed to you when you downloaded/registered for the wallet. If you used this wallet, your coins are basically lost.

What the individual parts are actually worth is a meaningless metric really... Personally, I don't think iPhones and Galaxy S20's are worth USD$1000... and their internal components are definitely not worth that much... but the companies think that enough consumers think they are, and based on the retail sales volumes, enough consumers do think they are!

Is it a "scam"?... no, of course it isn't... Companies are free to charge whatever they like for their products, no one is forcing you to buy it. As long as it is a hardware wallet that delivers all the promised specs/features, then it's not a scam... arguably, it is "over-priced"... but it's not a scam

Having said that, I just don't see enough of a value proposition for this device to be worth $299... especially when you stack it up against competing devices like coldcard, trezor, ledger etc... which are less than half the price.

Approximately how many transactions and/or addresses are in that specific wallet?

It could be that your wallet simply has too many transactions and/or is requesting info for too many addresses at once... because of that the servers are throttling your connection... Once it is throttled, the "ElectrumX" server (which most Electrum Servers are running) will remember your IP and refuse your connection until a specified timeout period has passed.

For CPFP to work... you need to spending one of the outputs of the previous unconfirmed transaction.

Ie.

UnconfirmedTransaction1:

So, you need to be spending the outputs that went to RecipientAddressA or ChangeAddressB in the CPFP transaction... ie the "children" of the transaction... which means you need to be the recipient of the original transaction, or the owner of any change address that was used.


So, with the above scenario, the receiver could setup a CPFP like this:

or the original sender could spend their unconfirmed change like this:


Basically, you can only do CPFP if you have received unconfirmed coins... you cannot use CPFP if you were just the sender and didn't get any change:

In this scenerio... only ReceiverB can do CPFP... as they're the only "child"

Research, development... production costs of making what will no doubt be a limited run of essentially bespoke devices (even if they are built using "open" hardware).

There is always a fairly significant amount of time, effort and money spent on bringing a product to market... My guess is that they're just trying to recover these costs. Sadly, in a market that has two well established leaders which are already at significantly lower price points, it is going to be difficult for them to sell many units.

Imagine if Apple/Samsung were selling $500 flagship smartphones... and Google/OnePlus showed up with a $1000 smartphone... because that's pretty much what the Passport folks are attempting to do here

Correct... it's Bitcoin, Bitcoin TestNet, BCH, DOGE, Litecoin... ETH and Stellar... I did have another one installed, but had to give it up when they updated the apps just prior to this latest firmware, as it increased the app sizes slightly and the other one I wanted to install was 30Kb and I was down to only 28Kb left

And now it's even "worse".

Having said that, I don't really use anything other than BTC and tBTC on a "regular" basis, so it's not a huge problem uninstalling/reinstalling the apps if I need to.

If you don't currently hold any funds in the wallet (and don't plan on doing so in the future), then I would recommend that you make sure you have your paper backup, migrate all your usage to the wallet(s) of your choice and then simply cross the "proof of ownership" bridge when you need to.

If you're going to continue to use Bitcoin Core (as a non-pruned node), then not having Armory installed isn't a big issue, as you can simply re-install, restore wallet etc... The problem would be if you wanted to ditch Bitcoin Core altogether and move to a lightweight SPV wallet like Electrum.

In that scenario, if you did have to try and prove ownership, you'd need to install and sync Bitcoin Core again... which could take hours/days etc.

Given that the Electrum server I connect to is mine... connected to my own full node... I am fairly comfortable with my "zero privacy"

In the 2nd option (A+B -> D, C+D -> E)... it isn't entirely obvious that A,B and C are all linked.

You only know that A+B are linked and C+D are linked... but not necessarily all controlled by the same entity. There is no "solid" evidence for that.

There might be some circumstantial evidence that could be inferred, such as "no change output", which may indicate that it was a consolidation transaction, but it is certainly not guaranteed... for instance, it could just as easily be someone sending all available funds as part payment for something.

So while it is not as "private" as running funds through mixers/coinjoins etc... it is certainly "better" than A+B+C => D


The real danger is that you need to really pay attention to what you're doing and make sure that you never accidentally link A/B and C/D or E together by including them as inputs in the same transaction.

If Bitcoin Core was up to date and Armory was not, then the most likely reason would be block file corruption causing the ArmoryDB to stall during the block data parsing... We'd have needed to see your Armory logs to be able to diagnose that.


But it appears that it is no longer any issue

Glad you got it sorted. Thanks for the update.

Yeah, if you just want a full history of all your transactions, and don't need the ability to spend any funds and/or sign any transactions... importing addresses into a watching-only wallet would give you that info.

Signing messages with P2SH addresses is "a bit of a mess"™... The primary reason being that there is no guarantee that a P2SH address actually has a private key to sign the message with... as they are a "Script Hash"... and the script doesn't necessarily involve private/public keys. Some wallets like Electrum, Mycelium and Trezor support signing/verifying using P2SH addresses... but it can be very inconsistent across implementations as there is no real "standard"

Indeed, if you attempt to sign a message within Armory using one of the P2SH-P2PK addresses, it will give you a warning that this is not supported:


So, "Proving ownership" is going to be difficult... I would suspect that if you needed to do so, you would have to deposit some funds into that address and then send a transaction from the address to prove that you have control over it.

Honestly? At this point in time, based purely on my experience, I would have to say "No"... I don't think I could recommend it... not unless you have a really solid understanding of the bot settings and can set them to match your personal risk profile.

I was probably needing something that was a bit more "idiot proof" or geared towards "lazy investor"... as I will readily admit, I know almost nothing regarding the in's and out's of trading... and, as we witnessed with the substantial hits that I took, leaving the bots at default settings left you vulnerable to some nasty surprises.

Now, to be fair, I have only been using the plaform now for 4 1/2 months, from Early April through to Late August... and in that time I hit three (more) big losses and changed my bot from using "Aethon" to using "Manticore"...

So far, "Manticore" seems to be doing "OK", in that it has at least recovered all my losses from when I started using the platform. I'm kinda surprised, tbh... I had expected that I was going to get wiped out (or at least drop below min balance threshold) during some of the very volatile trading periods we have seen in the last couple of months.

Currently, I have no plans to "exit"... maybe if my balance gets back around the fiat value I originally invested (~US$735) then I might consider pulling out... for now, I think I'll "let it ride".

Given that YoYa has now repaid the debt, and sandy-is-fine considers that this situation is "resolved", I have removed my support from the Type-3 flag, as these flag conditions are no longer valid:

I have instead put a neutral tag on the account for now, referenced back to this thread.


NOTE: Currently, the flag is still "Active" with a "score" of 3-0. If the other users do not remove their support within a reasonable amount of time, I might consider "opposing" the flag so that the flag would have "insufficient support" and no longer be marked as active.

@YoYa, feel free to PM me again in a week if owlcatz, eddie13 and/or MiLkz have not responded and the flag is still active.

That is correct... most people use "seed", "12/24 word phrase", "backup/recovery phrase" and "seed mnemonic" interchangeably.

That is indeed what should be put in to the box when restoring the wallet using "File -> New\restore -> Standard Wallet -> I already have a seed".

And, yes... it needs to have spaces between the words... so it should be:

NOT:

I don't think Electrum will even allow you to go past the seed entry window if you used ",".


If you use "View - Show Addresses" on your 4.0.2 wallet... are the addresses listed there the same as in the old Electrum?

Would give a full update, but I'm away on business at the moment... using a shitty old laptop that idles at 70C and thermal throttles "like a boss"™

It took me literally 10 minutes just to get this screenshot, crop it and upload it... >


Nearly back to "break even" from the start of ThePlatform™... just a minor loss of -0.0016BTC... which means that overall, from the original 0.1BTC investment on the old VPS hosted bot, I am down around -0.0616BTC... or roughly ~61% loss.


Note: my overall portfolio is listed as being 0.099134BTC, but 0.059781BTC of that is "fee balance" which is the leftovers from the "loss rebate" that was credited to my account when the platform was launched. This cannot be withdrawn. It's basically "store credit".

The problem is that the "P2SH-P2PK" addresses are fairly unique to Armory. There is no way that I know of to import these into Electrum or any other wallet for that matter.

They are not P2SH-P2WPKH addresses...



You can see goatpig's description of how these addresses work, and what you'd need to do to be able to spend from them (ie. manually create the raw transaction, then sign it using the private key), here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2605402.msg27777791#msg27777791

(NOTE: for anyone interested in the code, the link that goatpig provided to the code that creates the P2SH-P2PK script in his post above, is slightly outdated... and the getP2PKScript() function is now a few lines further down. The link to the current code is: https://github.com/goatpig/BitcoinArmory/blob/master/cppForSwig/Wallets.cpp#L2707)

Looking at your code... the only time it will end up as chance=49 is when the lastBet.Roll was <3.3 or > 96.7 AND it was a loss...

The "if !win then... else..." block you have means that if it was a win... it sets nextbet = balance /1024 and then chance is set to 97.2549.

So currently, will only work if it is < 3.3... as you're betting "high" to start by default, if the roll is over 96.7 you'll win and the chance won't change.

Try something like this:

All the "ususal disclaimers" apply... I haven't thoroughly tested this, so run at your own risk

Also, based on your pseudocode, I'd suggest you read this: https://steemit.com/dicebot/@seuntjie/dicebot-programmer-mode-tutorial-02-process

It gives you an idea of how the "flow" works... you can't run "innerloops" like the while() statement you have. Essentially, after a bet is placed and result received, dobet() is called...

At this point, you can then process the received result and make changes to your bet amount, high/low, chance etc... then when you get to the end of the dobet() function, a bet with the new parameters is sent to the server and the bot waits for the new result.

Again, once the result is received, dobet() runs again... and the process repeats until the script is stopped (manually, by stop() command in script, or an error is received from server).

Did you try opening any of those wallet.dat's with a text editor and searching for the text "name"? If so, did you find any addresses?

The first letter/number of any "name" records that you find in the wallet.dat's will give a good indication as to what coin the wallet.dat was used for.

You can see in this screenshot... all the "name" records start with "D" ("DMJH...","DRPY...","DJBB...","DQfQH..." etc), that indicates that it is a Dogecoin wallet.



It would also pay to check the "corrupted" wallet.dat's... it's possible that if they are for altcoins, that the developers may have made modifications that make their wallet.dat look "corrupted" to Bitcoin Core.