Didn't you backup your seeds?

I don't recall Electrum deleting my wallet files after my uninstall but it'll probably be better for you to get a copy of your wallet file, just in case the behavior somehow changes. If you're using Windows and it's normal installation, then the wallet files should be located within %appdata%/Electrum/Wallets.

Please do not give anyone control of your computer, no matter how trusted they seem. If something happens to the wallet or your computer, it's your words against theirs. And for that matter, your wallet file as well.

What error message are you getting? Let us know.

Electrum accepts MPKs with the prefix of xpriv only so you likely cannot import it there.

TrustedCoin charges 0.00005BTC for each transaction for their service, when you pre-pay for 20 TXes. In this scenario, you're trying to spend more than you have as 0.001BTC is reserved to be sent to TrustedCoin and hence you only have 0.05mBTC available to be spent and that is before fees.

What you can do now, is to restore the wallet, File>New/Restore, Select Wallet with 2FA and select I already have a seed. Your wallet should be restored and the 2FA is now disabled. You can send the coins normally without paying them the fees and you can just send it to your Ledger the normal amount.

You'll have to call the method:

With the following parameters

---

I found the documentation for JSON_RPC but it's a bit outdated since it's method was changed to one with an underscore. If you want to make the invoice never expiring, then you have to specify the expiration and put None as a value, the only other required param is the amount.

https://electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/jsonrpc.html

Addresses never expires. If tracking invoices is not something that you need, it'll be better for you to just take an addresses from your address tab and give it to the user.

If you want to use invoices, just create but set the expiry to Never. Even if it did expire, it wouldn't matter as the address would still be in your wallet and they're never deleted.

No. Forks as in miners building on different chains.... I don't think there's any difference from Litecoin??? So not sure why anyone wants to fork this.

If you're serious about this, perhaps start answering the more technical aspect of things (both ETFBitcoin's and mine) and be more professional instead of proclaiming that it'll be "better" than Bitcoin. Anyhow, my last reply to this thread and I don't find any point in continuing this discussion. Wish you luck in making it "bigger than Bitcoin" 

It would be a huge security risk to have it run sequentially. Imagine if I were to try to get bc1qw and since it runs sequentially, another person also gets the same bc1qw address.  It has a RNG to ensure the randomness.
Vanity gen brute forces using the given split public key. When it gets the correct solution, it'll produce your part public key and part private key. Give the private key combine with their part private key and the address will be as defined in the pattern.

There's one thing that OP is missing. Transactions are usually multi inputs and/or have multi output. If your block size can only accommodate a maximum of 3 transactions of which all are one inputs and one outputs, then you would have a very big privacy problem.

You can probably survive with 4.2 seconds on a very well connected network but if your network is initially small, there is definitely going to be a bunch of forks. Well, especially when you're mining on a phone. To anyone thinking about using this, I implore you to consider the cost of phones and it's degradation when subjected to prolonged high loads.

Bitcoin succeeded because it was the first and there were actual solutions made to combat current problems.

Nothing to see here. Just another day in the shitcoin world.

It wouldn't make sense.

RBF requires the replacement transaction to pay at least the minimum relay fee for it to be propagated well. Unless you're able to get a miners participation and for which any rational miners will not agree to do so, you'll not be able to replace it with a lower fee. It'll be more ideal for you to start with a low fee and slowly increase as and when you like. You have to flag the transaction as replaceable as well, not all transactions can be RBFed.

Possible but very unlikely to happen. It would mean that the transaction has been around for a long period of time and for it to get confirmed within another reasonable timeframe, it would be in OP's best interest to just pay a higher fee.

Yes. Segwit (or rather Nested Segwit) addresses are actually P2SH addresses with a witness script. They should be compatible with most, if not all wallets since it was introduced fairly long ago.

The compatibility of whichever addresses that you're sending to lies purely with whether your client thinks if the address type is valid. Bech32 is valid for those services/clients who have upgraded to recognise it. Otherwise, in a modern wallet, you should be able to send within all the address types.

For ECDSA signatures, there is no encryption involved in the process.

Both signing a message and signing a transaction works in the same manner, other than the fact that "Bitcoin Signed Message:" is appended at the beginning of the message but that is transparent to the user. It has to choose a random nonce but most clients uses RFC6979 for a deterministic signature nowadays. After that it'll calculate for the signature. It's interesting to note that while most would require the actual public key for the validation, it can actually be obtained from the signature itself. The address you provides is just used to match the derived public key to the address that you provide.
I'm not sure which services requires the signed message but that is not too unreasonable to ask for. How would a Bitcoin signed message be used to enhance the security or ensure the validity? Most (other than in very special case) Bitcoin transactions involves the use of ECDSA signatures.

I doubt so, I've used MyCelium in the past and if memory serves me right, I had to root the phone to access the secure storage and extract the keys. I forgot if I had it encrypted or not. Storing it in an SD card would be pretty insecure. That is, unless the wallet had a backup for which it'll be in PDF.

IIRC, S4 was generally fairly easy to root and wasn't as complicated as the S-Off in my old HTC. Since you've uninstalled Mycelium, I suspect the files wouldn've been overwritten already. No harm getting it to a specialist to try to get it recovered, the process could be slightly complicated but might be worth the try especially if you're sure it contains a certain amount of Bitcoins.

Plenty. Privacy and efficiency enhancement of multisig for example.
It wouldn't help if the main problem is with the timeframe that it gets a confirmation. Merchants used to accept 0 conf transactions because the risks of it being double spent was relatively low in the past.

Lightning network is ideal for smaller payments and it still relies on the user to open their own channel in order to transact. It'll also mean that there is a limited inbound capacity if the user is new and thus wouldn't make it viable for people that deals with larger transaction infrequently. Some smaller merchants has already adopted lightning network and it has provided more benefits for smaller transactions than those bigger ones.

** Lightning can alleviate the problem but it won't solve onchain scaling if and when Bitcoin gets an even greater adoption.

Unfortunately these phishing attacks are common and isn't isolated to Blockchain.com alone. There are quite a few affecting Electrum as well. Either use an ad block to block Google Ads or just ignore the ads. None of the wallets that I've seen actively advertises their own sites.

Google is fairly slow at responding to these actually. The site is most commonly just a redirection to another phishing page, probably to evade automated detection and more will just spawn up.

Depends on whether the mempool gets less congested or not. You can monitor https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,24h and see if the 1sat/byte transactions are anywhere near 1MB.
No. It rebroadcasts[1] your transaction which shouldn't have any effect on your transaction unless it was poorly propagated which is not the case here.


[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_accelerator

The problem here is the insertion of malicious code into the source code itself which compromises the RNG. Unless you inspect it yourself, any scripts will be vulnerable to this. The issue here is not with the machine being online. I don't see the point of using a vanity address generator when OP was specifically generating a paper wallet and vanity gen AFAIK doesn't convert the keys into a paper wallet by itself.

Air gapped wallet, to be specific. I usually consider it as storing my private key on a micro SD card but with layers of encryption so that an adversary cannot crack it within a short period of time, if needed. Being able to sign the transactions offline will negate most malware attacks as the airgap will deter most malware. If not for the ease of signing, using a pen and pencil to write down the seed would have been sufficient.

Your transaction pays a transaction fee of 1 satoshi/byte. This puts it roughly at 22MB from the tip of the mempool, and each block shaves 1 MB of the tip of the mempool. It could take sometime before the transaction can be confirmed.

If you control the output address, you can do a CPFP by spending it with a higher fee to get it confirmed faster.

Well, as far as I can tell, there isn't anything wrong with the ISO or the source code that I built it from. I'll try to debug it and see if I can find anything when I have the time. It has happened to me less than 10 times and I'm thinking that it could've just been something wrong with the SD card.

I do. For some reason, my Raspbian randomly wipes my entire Electrum instance every now and then. It's quite annoying to be restoring it from the seed every now and then, the entire wallet file just disappears. Not a big issue but just very annoying.