This conversation is starting to head down the "what if?" rabbit hole... I've travelled internationally a number of times whilst carrying hardware wallets... both Ledger and Trezor... never been looked at twice, nor asked what the devices were... including North America who have some of the nosiest border agents!  Most seem more concerned about drugs, weapons, how long I want to stay and exactly why I'm visiting... |
|
|
|
My BTC Adress for future Reference: 1 SiNeRYT3iE7wbJeXULmSHUaDU6nfBjAe Adress: 1SiNeRYT3iE7wbJeXULmSHUaDU6nfBjAe
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This address is controlled by the BitcoinTalk.org member SiNeReiNZzz!
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
HESCfyKfyjli9Vam+UtxWX+hd7p+CXdz3vRJUumEcI07Fj6qHoyz9FQbJ8u0311aBHZFakHv18wtqkaEgJ6ZiS4=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- Qouted, verified and archive.
In addition to my first staked BTC adress (qouted above): 1SiNeRYT3iE7wbJeXULmSHUaDU6nfBjAe
I'll add a segwit address that also can be clearly assigned to me: bc1qe8femg0cc7mr975vaywjqm534gcm3cczu387vs
Thank you
NEW SEGWIT-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This address ( bc1qe8femg0cc7mr975vaywjqm534gcm3cczu387vs ) is controlled by the BitcoinTalk.org member SiNeReiNZzz.
Other adresses: 1SiNeRYT3iE7wbJeXULmSHUaDU6nfBjAe
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
bc1qe8femg0cc7mr975vaywjqm534gcm3cczu387vs
IA/ymyun29ve+B6k8v6eWUliSCMxcM3W6Y2t9Z1EPg0MUawBg/DXdnVcz+apNd2yqH5t8rniIKZb++hN7PbX5oo=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- Quoted... and verified using Electrum:  |
|
|
|
As far as I'm aware, it has to be actual physical currency on your person/in your belongings when you're crossing borders... The coins you have are effectively, "in a bank account" (you are being your own bank after all  )... so, as far as I'm concerned, you don't have to declare it any more than you would holding a debit/credit card that had access to a bank account holding $100,000.00... or a laptop that you could use to access your internet banking etc. |
|
|
|
But when we lock UTXO with CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, we have to set nLocktime of a transaction in which UTXO will be referenced as input greater than the CLTV locktime of the UTXO, right?
Correct, the nLocktime of the transaction that "spends" the CLTV UTXO must be greater than or equal to the original CLTV locktime. My question is, can we relay the above transaction immediately?
No. OR we have to wait for nLocktime to elapse due to the reason mentioned in first line?
Yes, as you have deduced, you must wait for the CLTV Locktime to have passed before the "spending" transaction will be considered as valid... refer: Since a transaction may only be included in a valid block if its nLockTime is in the past, this ensures the CLTV-based timelock has expired before the transaction may be included in a valid block.
|
|
|
|
|
And while it isn't strictly necessary... it is "good practice"... because often users will stake an address from a "custodial" service, not realising that they can't actually sign a message from that address until it is too late (ie. when their account gets hacked and they're trying to recover it)
By signing a message now, it reduces the chances of this being a problem later, as they've already done it once. It doesn't really prove anything to anyone except the person trying to stake the address... ie. that they can actually do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Just to add to that... Current Coinmarketcap.com prices are as follows:
BTC: USD~$11,200
BCH: USD~$287
BSV: USD~$223
BTG: USD~$10
BTCD: USD~$0.83 (note: was forked at a 10:1 ratio, so is effectively ~$8.30 per BTC that was held prefork)
Once you get the BTC, BCH and BSV from your "brain wallet"... the other forks are barely worth the trouble/security risk unless you:
1. have 100's or 1000's of BTC (in which case, you already have millions of dollars worth of BTC!)
or
B. you are very desperate for cash
or
Lastly, you live in a place where $5 is considered a lot of money
|
|
|
|
And what happened to the wallet file? Did you manually delete it?
OP said that they reinstalled the OS: ... now i just changed my windows without having backup of my wallet and all my coins are gone...
...and I'm guessing they either wiped the drive and did a clean install, or at the very least, didn't select the "save my files" option... although that doesn't necessarily save things in the "AppData" directory as I once discovered the hard way  |
|
|
|
...I wanted to transfer everything to a new storage and found out I need to update to newer version of Electrum. So I did update but somehow I thought that Electrum would open my old wallet again. Did you actually get a message from within Electrum itself saying that you needed to update (when you tried to send funds)?  And if so, did you click on any links on the displayed message? If you answered "yes" to these questions, there is a good chance that you downloaded a fake malware version of Electrum... and there is high chance that your wallet has been compromised. |
|
|
|
if one transaction is paying X and another Y and X > Y then the transaction paying X is preferred.
Miners will pick the higher sat/vByte transaction (fee rate) rather than the total paid fees.
Not in all instances... there are instances where a lower fee rate would be preferred... but that's only in a few "edge" cases when you're attempting to fill the very end of a block and there are a limited number of transactions left to choose from... ie. if you have 1000 bytes left... and you have a 900 byte transaction paying 1 sat/bye... and a 101 byte transaction that pays 5 sats/byte... you can't take both, so obviously, you'd take the 900 byte transaction The likelihood of this actually occurring are fairly small... but it is still possible... and then you get into the mechanics of monitoring new transactions being added and rejuggling the transactions you want to put into your block etc... like I said... it's a juggling act But yes, in general, highest fee rate will 999/1000 times win |
|
|
|
Lol why did they do that? Why not one program for everything? Didn't satoshi vision it like that?
Because it's pointless... you will never be able to mine a block on CPU/GPU anymore... ASICs have seen to that. Started having some problems again At this point... I'm going to recommend you go and seek help in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3345808.0]that Altcoin thread] or create your own thread in Altcoin Discussion board... as this thread is starting to veer away from compiling Bitcoin Core source code, and into creating an Altcoin. That's not what this ( Bitcoin Technical Support) board is for. |
|
|
|
I believe the mining functionality was removed a long time ago (v0.12.1 was the last version to have the setgenerate command)... so the only way to "mine" with Bitcoin Core itself is when you're running a regtest environment and you use generate command. If you want to mine, you'll need mining software (and preferably mining hardware ) |
|
|
|
Why does bytes matter? The miner will look at the 8000 sats instead of the 5000 ones.
Miners look at the sum of sats/byte, and not the sats/byte by itself, right?
It matters because while higher fee rate transactions is how (in general) you maximise the total amount of fees that you can get from a block... you also have to remember that the block size is limited! So, by taking the transaction that is only 500 virtual bytes (instead of the 800 vbyte one), a miner still has another 300 virtual bytes to use in the block... so they might be able to find another transaction, maybe one that is 300 vbytes and paying 15 sats/vbyte, or 4500 sats... so they'd end up with 9500 sats in total, instead of only 8000 sats if the take the 800 vbyte transaction. It really is a bit of a juggling act that miners need to do when they're trying to fill blocks and maximise their returns. |
|
|
|
I'm not very experienced with computers and this problem has me stumped. I have a standard electrum wallet using trezor to run. I have some groestlcoin in the wallet and decided to move some to a different location. Note that Electrum is BTC only... Groestlcoin is an altcoin, and it would appear that they have released an Electrum "clone" to work with their coin. This fork (Electrum-GRS) is NOT supported by the Electrum devs, nor by Trezor/Satoshi Labs:  What am I supposed to do to send a few coins? None of my other wallets are this difficult. It's possible that the issue might be being caused by some updates that Trezor (and other Hardware Wallets) made recently to fix some issues... "Electrum-GRS" appears to be on version 3.3.8 of the Electrum code, and these changes were added into Electrum 4.0.1... So, until the "Electrum-GRS" devs port the changes to their wallet, you might not be able to spend your coins. # Release 4.0.1 - (July 3, 2020)
...
* Hardware wallets: several fixes in general; notable changes:
- The BitBox02 is now supported (#5993)
- Multisig support for Coldcard (#5440)
- Compatibility with latest Trezor fw (#6064, #6198, #5692)
...
Try creating an issue on the "Electrum-GRS" GitHub issue tracker here: https://github.com/Groestlcoin/electrum-grs/issuesor use the contact form on Groestlcoin website: https://www.groestlcoin.org/#contact or perhaps try one of their social media links: FB: https://www.facebook.com/groestlcoin/Twitter: https://twitter.com/GroestlcoinTeamReddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/groestlcoin/Telegram: http://t.me/groestlDiscord: https://discord.gg/vCKxQBz |
|
|
|
Is there an easy way to import or sweep coins from a paper wallet to a Nano S? Having googled it, a number of old posts seem to imply it is necessary to sweep to Coinomi first and then on to the Nano S. Is that because of the "QR Code" functionality? As in, simply scan the Private Key QR Code from the paper wallet to sweep into Coinomi and then send to your Nano S? It seems like quite a lot of hassle to do that given that I will need to spend a while working out how to do it safely, and the sort of person who owns paper wallets is probably the person who moves to a hardware wallet.
The short answer is that yes, it is a hassle to do that... but you should be able to sweep the funds directly from the paper wallet to your Ledger Nano S by following OmegaStarScreams advice... setup your Ledger Nano S, then connect it to Electrum... and then sweep the coins directly from the paper wallet into a Ledger Nano S address. Also, how do I do it for all the various forks that I presumably also own (Gold, Cash, SV, any others) Getting the forkcoins is likely to be a bit more complex... although most of the "big" forks have Electrum "clones", I'm not sure if they're still actively being developed and/or work with Ledger devices... ElectronCash possibly still is for BCH... but for the others, I have no idea. So, for those sweeping the fork coins into a multicoin wallet like Coinomi and then sending to addresses on your Ledger Nano S (via Ledger Live) might be the "easiest" (but not necessarily the "securest") option. |
|
|
|
Seems really simple, like to the point that I am missing something.
It's a hot/warm wallet setup... so it shouldn't be complicated! Seems like you're essentially prioritising convenience rather than security, so the simple wallet app on phone for quick access funds and the 2-of-3 multsig setup for slightly more secure access seems like a perfectly acceptable solution. |
|
|
|
Did you read the Kraken API docs? They have different POST data and header requirements to Bitstamp. Private methods must use POST and be set up as follows: HTTP header: API-Key = API key
API-Sign = Message signature using HMAC-SHA512 of (URI path + SHA256(nonce + POST data)) and base64 decoded secret API key
POST data: nonce = always increasing unsigned 64 bit integer
otp = two-factor password (if two-factor enabled, otherwise not required)
If you look through the github for the Kraken Python 2 example, you can see that the headers and POST data are implemented in code as: def query_private(self, method, req={}, conn = None):
"""API queries that require a valid key/secret pair.
Arguments:
method -- API method name (string, no default)
req -- additional API request parameters (default: {})
conn -- connection object to reuse (default: None)
"""
urlpath = '/' + self.apiversion + '/private/' + method
req['nonce'] = int(1000*time.time())
postdata = urllib.urlencode(req)
message = urlpath + hashlib.sha256(str(req['nonce']) +
postdata).digest()
signature = hmac.new(base64.b64decode(self.secret),
message, hashlib.sha512)
headers = {
'API-Key': self.key,
'API-Sign': base64.b64encode(signature.digest())
}
return self._query(urlpath, req, conn, headers)
Full api.py is here: https://github.com/veox/python2-krakenex/blob/master/krakenex/api.py |
|
|
|
I think it would be a good idea to change amount to 0 on "Payment to yourself" lines.
Why? The amount in a "Payment to yourself" line is due to transaction fees being spent and is going to result in a (small) reduction to your overall balance... unless you somehow paid a fee of zero satoshis!!?!  If you did indeed change all those values to zero, that is most likely why your spreadsheet value will be incorrect... as you're effectively ignoring any reduction in your balance due to transaction fees for those transactions. |
|
|
|
|
If you're using the Bitcoin Core codebase... then the default way of getting two devices to talk to one another is by using "addnode"... either from the console or in your "bitcoin.conf" file (or whatever your altcoin .conf file is meant to be called).
2 devices on the same network cannot have the same IP... even if they're on the same router, the external IP might be shared from an external viewpoint (ie. from the internet), but on the internal network (behind the router) they will indeed have different IP addresses, and should be able to connect to each other using those.
You'd need to check the network settings on each device to see what they are... and you'd most likely want to assign static IP addresses in the router setup so you can use the "addnode" in the .conf file and not have to worry about it changing.
|
|
|
|
No, it's not being split into many different addresses... three UTXOs are being combined and sent to one address: bc1q9slt8tfwfp33sn8gul0jmcpemq85pxh2csje6j It confuses me why if this were being stolen, they would transfer 0.249 btc to me before stealing the balance Indeed... also... why would any thief only take 0.01 and leave all the rest... only to send another transaction later that takes everything? It certainly doesn't look like the 'normal' sequence of someones wallet being emptied by a thief! These transactions occurred just over a month ago... are you 110% sure that you didn't make them? |
|
|
|
Please make a way to verify wallet owners and let us gain access to our coins
The way to "verify" a wallet owner is the 12 words seed mnemonic... or private keys to the addresses that the coins were sent to... or the wallet file and any password used to encrypt that wallet file. Without those things, your coins are effectively lost forever. So, if you reinstalled/upgraded Windows, and didn't use the option to save your personal documents/files, then chances are the wallet file is gone... and you don't appear to have a backup of the seed mnemonic or private keys  Your absolute last chance, "hail mary" is to try and do a file recovery as others have mentioned... if you can't recover the wallet file, then your coins are lost forever. The problem is I don't know what files extension electrum uses for the wallet files stored locally on the computer drive (Maybe someone more knowledgeable can clarify on this) otherwise it would be easier to specify on the recuva software what type of files (file extensions) you would like to recover.
Electrum doesn't use any file extension... default wallet is "default_wallet"... all other wallets are simply converted to lower case "walletname", so if you create one called "My Wallet"... then the filename will be "my wallet" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
