No... the address does not need to change. The way the message has been formatted and/or copy/pasted to Bitcointalk needs to be modified. Most likely there is "missing" or extra whitespace (like spaces, tabs, newline characters etc) in the post here which is actually causing the issue.

I doubt the poster has the address "1BUL..." in their wallet.

Looks familiar...


That's from April 4th to June 17th


Still sitting on the deck playing music as the Titantic sinks...

To be honest, I kinda got caught up with "Real Life"™ and haven't been paying too much attention to it... I figure I'll log in one day and the balance will be below the minimum required for the bot to work... which is 0.011BTC

Yeah... I got the same message while playing around with Ledger Nano S and Bitcoin Core/HWI...

I thought it might have been because the UTXOs I was spending were "unconfirmed", but I was advised by achow101 that it's related to the hardware wallet/SegWit flaw that was announced recently.


It's been patched, so if you download and run from source, it'll most likely work without issue... they just haven't released 4.0.0 as yet... fingers crossed it's not too far away

Please specify your exact versions of:

- Ledger Nano S firmware version
- Ledger Live version
- XRP app on device version

At the time of writing this, the most recent versions are:

Nano S firmware: 1.6.0
Ledger Live: 2.5.0
XRP app: 1.1.1

I have XRP installed and it all seems to be working OK. Do you have issues with other coins or is it just XRP that isn't working?

Now we're talking... I'd definitely back this initiative!

Seems like Ledger are simply trying to spin up new income streams...   No doubt the hardware wallet market is relatively saturated, and given they're a "one off" cost type of device, there is no on-going income once everyone that is going to buy one has bought one.

Shame they're being so greedy with such high margins tho... you'd think we the massive user base, if they had opted for tighter margins they could have actually been providing a very useful and financially attractive service... but no, they went for the money grab

Not wanting to point out the obvious... but Bitcoin Technical Support is for: "Questions regarding issues with Bitcoin Core, nodes, the Bitcoin network, transactions, and addresses."

You might have better luck asking on the Altcoins board here, or some of the ETH community boards like:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/

or perhaps try some of the other resources here: https://ethereum.org/community/

@x3m, I can confirm that this works... I've just tested this workflow using Bitcoin Core (TestNet) 0.20.0 and a Ledger Nano S. I installed the "HWI" Python module (and libusb) and was able to successfully create a "watching only" wallet within Bitcoin Core. I funded it with 0.1 tBTC and was then able to create the PSBT, finalise it and send it using HWI, my Ledger Nano S and bitcoin-cli.

I did get an "Unverified Inputs" warning on the Ledger device when signing the transaction, but I was able to "ignore" that error and continue.

@achow101, is that warning possibly due to the fact that the transaction that created the UTXO I was spending only had 1 confirmation when I was attempting to sign the transaction?

What you're describing here is "Child Pays For Parent" aka CPFP.

However, the miners are generally smart enough to figure out what the "average" fee rate is that you are paying across the 2 transactions... and will only prioritise the two transactions if the average fee rate used across both transactions is big enough!

Thus, if the first transaction (using 1 sat/byte) is 400 bytes... and your second transaction (using 100 sat/byte) is 226 bytes... then your "effective" fee rate for both transactions is actually (600+22600 sats / 400 + 226 bytes) == 37 sats/byte.

So, if enough other transactions are still paying 40+ sats/byte, you might find that your small 100 sat/byte transaction is not that "interesting" after all

Technically it's a "donation" service... in that you pay what you think is a fair amount for the use of their service, with there being no minimum. So, while you can pay "zero" I'm sure they'd appreciate a fair rate of compensation for the service provided

I'm sorry, I still don't understand exactly what the problem is... are you saying that PyWallet is NOT giving you the address/private key data output when you try to use the dumpwallet command?

If so, what output and/or errors are you getting when you try to execute PyWallet?

Is that the actual end of the file? Or did you run out of room to post the log? I don't see any error in the log file... so I'm guessing it just throws that error to the console?

If you look in the "/home/bblboy54/.bitcoin/blocks" directory, what is the highest blk0xxxx.dat file number that you have? I'm guessing it is a bit higher than blk01974.dat. If so, it would appear that one of your block files is corrupted.

You might need to -reindex your Bitcoin Core node

It really isn't... you simply go here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases

Get the version(s) of Bitcoin Core that you want/need... there are even standalone versions that don't need to be "installed". Then simply run with a custom "datadir" and it will generate a new wallet.dat for you.

As already mentioned, you don't need to download the blockchain at all... and you can very easily create whatever version wallet.dat's that you require if you want/need ones that were created by specific versions of Bitcoin Core. No need to look at shady websites or porn or deal with potentially dodgy file downloads.

The simple solution to this is "Don't be in a hurry"... Being in a hurry leads to all sorts of mistakes during all sorts of activities... Driving, Flying, Software Development, Using Bitcoin, Sex etc

There is a certain level of personal responsibility involved when it comes to Bitcoin... One should never take anything for granted and always check the basics:

- Correct address(es) used
- Correct amount to send
- Correct fee rate

Yeah... no issues from my side here... Windows Defender didn't complain about anything. 2.5.0 downloaded through Ledger Live and installed without issue. Everything seems to be running OK.

Seems the "big" feature in this new release was the ability to buy crypto from within LL.

There is pretty much no point to this... If you knew enough that Electrum 3.3.4 should not be run, you'd simply not use it... setting admin tools to block it is a waste of time.

And there is no way to force other peoples computers to not run it unless you're a System Admin in a corporate type environment... in which case, why would anyone want to run Bitcoin wallet software on a machine that they don't have full and exclusive (admin) access to?

Yes, you can do that... you'd just need to create a data structure that would store the results for you... I've done something similar before that stores values... simply use LUA "Tables" to store/lookup the results... https://www.tutorialspoint.com/lua/lua_tables.htm

Note that the downside is that depending on the size of the tables you're creating/updating, it can require significant "time" and "storage" penalties to do this and there is the potential to slow down your bot. Usually it's not a huge performance hit, but some people want/need 100's of bets/second type performance from the bot.

If that isn't that important to you... then what you want to do shouldn't be too difficult.

From memory that was usually an issue with attempting to run Electrum on older Windows 7 versions... where there were some missing .dlls and would require a certain windows update to be installed. However, you're on Windows 10 and should not have that issue.

Have you tried running it as "Administrator"? Right click on the .exe and "Run as"...

Also check the Windows Event Viewer and look in the error logs to see if there is anything more specific there.

There are also some "community" support options available via links on the Electrum-LTC homepage as listed here: https://electrum-ltc.org/#community

I guessing that it was this one back in February then: https://btc.com/a0b288b9c28e324f80ab037f3a4ad2e05f27769c71c47afe3082b6d00cf65b9c

0.00001000 BTC sent to 3AsXDKX1etLgegepVeJbhj7WeZiypVMgdt and paid 0.00000422 BTC in fees

Whether or not that address is in any way, shape or form controlled by Mr. Buffet is not really a debate I care to partake in... but your transaction will forever be in the blockchain, that much is certain.

If you did indeed update your firmware to 1.9.1, then until the release candidate of Electrum 4.0.0 is released, you'll need to use the Trezor interface here: https://wallet.trezor.io/

It's likely due to the updated Trezor firmware that makes some changes to the way native segwit is handled to prevent a (very unlikely) scenario whereby a user can be tricked into signing a transaction that makes them spend a large amount of BTC on miners fees.

As per the Trezor Release notes here: