20% - 30 bitcoins is a lot of money to just give away.
Fair enough... but another way to look at it is that at the moment, you effectively have 0 bitcoins... which is better 0 BTC or 120 BTC?   When I try to start this, nothing happens.
How to run a hashcat on a processor?
Ok, so what do you mean by "nothing happens"?  To run hashcat, you need: 1. The password hash generated by the "bitcoin2john.py" script 2. Some idea of what your password is hashcat.exe -m 11300 -a 3 <$bitcoin_hash_goes_here> <password mask goes here>
For example you can test using the example hash from here that has the password 'hashcat': hashcat.exe -m 11300 -a 3 $bitcoin$96$d011a1b6a8d675b7a36d0cd2efaca32a9f8dc1d57d6d01a58399ea04e703e8bbb44899039326f7a00f171a7bbc854a54$16$1563277210780230$158555$96$628835426818227243334570448571536352510740823233055715845322741625407685873076027233865346542174$66$625882875480513751851333441623702852811440775888122046360561760525 hash?l?l?l == bitcoin wallet.dat format -a 3 == bruteforce attack mode (word lists probably are not of use to you if you think you have a good idea of what your password actually is) hash?l?l?l == password mask of text 'hash'+lowercase letter+lowercase letter+lowercase letter That command should "quickly" find that the password is: hashcat $bitcoin$96$d011a1b6a8d675b7a36d0cd2efaca32a9f8dc1d57d6d01a58399ea04e703e8bbb44899039326f7a00f171a7bbc854a54$16$1563277210780230$158555$96$628835426818227243334570448571536352510740823233055715845322741625407685873076027233865346542174$66$625882875480513751851333441623702852811440775888122046360561760525:hashcat
Session..........: hashcat
Status...........: Cracked
Hash.Name........: Bitcoin/Litecoin wallet.dat
Hash.Target......: $bitcoin$96$d011a1b6a8d675b7a36d0cd2efaca32a9f8dc1d...760525
Time.Started.....: Tue May 05 11:02:14 2020 (4 secs)
Time.Estimated...: Tue May 05 11:02:18 2020 (0 secs)
Guess.Mask.......: hash?l?l?l [7]
Guess.Queue......: 1/1 (100.00%)
Speed.#1.........: 4581 H/s (1.43ms) @ Accel:4 Loops:64 Thr:1024 Vec:1
Recovered........: 1/1 (100.00%) Digests
Progress.........: 17576/17576 (100.00%)
Rejected.........: 0/17576 (0.00%)
Restore.Point....: 0/17576 (0.00%)
Restore.Sub.#1...: Salt:0 Amplifier:0-1 Iteration:158528-158554
Candidates.#1....: hashana -> hashqxq
Hardware.Mon.#1..: Temp: 51c Fan: 28% Util: 94% Core:1860MHz Mem:4513MHz Bus:16
Started: Tue May 05 11:02:07 2020
Stopped: Tue May 05 11:02:20 2020
Your issue will be defining the 'mask'... you need to know how many characters in your password, and the characters used... ie. lower case, uppercase, numbers, symbols etc, then you can build a mask using the following table: - [ Built-in Charsets ] -
? | Charset
===+=========
l | abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
u | ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
d | 0123456789
h | 0123456789abcdef
H | 0123456789ABCDEF
s | !"#$%&'()*+,-./:;<=>?@[\]^_`{|}~
a | ?l?u?d?s
b | 0x00 - 0xff
So, say you think your password is 8 chars long, and uses a mix of lower, UPPER, numbers and symbols... you would use: ?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a If you are 100% of the characters at a position, ie. you know 100% the password starts with WOW, you could use: WOW?a?a?a?a?a or if you know it has 2 numbers on the end: ?a?a?a?a?a?a?d?d Obviously, the more specific you can be with your mask, the smaller the keyspace that needs to be searched and the less time it will take to find. Refer here for more info regarding mask attack: https://hashcat.net/wiki/doku.php?id=mask_attackNOTE: if you find you are getting "Token Length Exception" errors when trying to run hashcat, try using the BETA version from here: https://hashcat.net/beta/ |
|
|
|
TBH (and somewhat cynical)... chances are that a bunch of them have been banned for plagiarism and/or spamming  Either that, or they have realised that Bitcointalk is not the "get rich quick" utopia that a lot of newbies seem to think it is and have simply not come back. Have you checked their profiles for the "last active" date? If that date isn't fairly recent, chances are they will not be claiming anything. |
|
|
|
I don't think it is an incorrect label. I suspect it is because 'lblCoinCtrl' is only attached to the SelectWalletFrame object if 'coinControlCallback' is set... if coinControlCallback:
self.lblCoinCtrl = QRichLabel(self.tr('Source: All addresses'), doWrap=False)
frmLayout.addWidget(self.lblCoinCtrl, 4, 2, 1, 1)
self.lblRBF = QRichLabel(self.tr('Source: N/A'))
frmLayout.addWidget(self.lblRBF, 5, 2, 1, 1)
self.btnCoinCtrl = QPushButton(self.tr('Coin Control'))
self.connect(self.btnCoinCtrl, SIGNAL(CLICKED), self.doCoinCtrl)
self.btnRBF = QPushButton(self.tr('RBF Control'))
self.connect(self.btnRBF, SIGNAL(CLICKED), self.doRBF)
frmLayout.addWidget(self.btnCoinCtrl, 4, 0, 1, 2)
frmLayout.addWidget(self.btnRBF, 5, 0, 1, 2)
Otherwise, it simply doesn't exist... So, when the RBF code here tries to update it... it's failing: def updateRBFLabel(self):
#reset coin control label to signify RBF and coin control are mutually exclusive
self.lblCoinCtrl.setText(self.tr('Source: N/A'))
...
Perhaps this setText call simply needs a check to see if 'self.coinControlCallback' is true? |
|
|
|
The issue would be if you had no idea what your address index is and you needed to derive every address from 0-100.
That's what I'm saying... if I know that I've started from 100, but no-one else does... they would need to derive everything. My comment wasn't relating to me recovering my own seed, but in the strategy of scrambling a seed to further protect it from discovery by a 3rd party. If they have no idea what index your used addresses start at, then they're going to have to derive all of them. |
|
|
|
I should have mentioned, anyone with access to your old device would be able to view your account... but without the Ledger device (and PIN etc), they would not be able to spend your coins. Essentially, your old device has a "watching only" version of the wallet. All the private keys are stored on the ledger itself, NOT on your phone. If you want to remove all traces of the wallet from your old device, you can simply delete the cache/app data for Mycelium and then uninstall Mycelium from your old device. It won't affect your ability to link the Ledger to a new device and you won't lose your coins etc. I would advise that you make sure that you can actually connect the Nano S to your new phone first... some devices do not support OTG  |
|
|
|
I am curious if you can look at your trading history, and what happened in the market at the time to determine what caused the massive, sudden losses.
Did something happen the bot did not expect, that is so unusual that it is unlikely to ever happen again? Or did the bot simply make a bet in the wrong direction and the market turned against you?
The full trading history is available, as this still works via my BitMEX account and API keys... so I can see all the order/trade history... However, I honestly have no idea about most of this stuff. People start talking about signals, bands, breakouts, shakeouts, candles etc and my eyes start to roll back in my head So, I'm sure someone might be able to analyse it all and see what actually happened. I do know that in one of the previous losses (ie. with Arakne), the bot went full retard and in the middle of a bunch of trades, it started a new trade cycle, and put in a bunch of new orders, even tho it was actually within $100 of the previous cycles stop limit... unsurprisingly, the limit hit and a full exit was made and 30% of the balance got wiped. This latest episode, I have no idea... I missed the entire thing as I had set it going and just forgot about it. Apparently, I wasn't using the bot properly. |
|
|
|
Hashcat with appropriate rules would probably run faster than btcrecover. In any case, I would highly recommend you contact https://walletrecoveryservices.com/ and negotiate a deal with them. They are specialists in this field and have had quite a bit of success. It's fairly safe as they only require the "password hash" extracted using bitcoin2john.py... they do not need your wallet.dat, so will not be able to access your coins. The downside is that they can be quite expensive. However, it's likely to yield better results than someone who doesn't know what they're doing messing about with hashcat, btcrecover and various rulesets/token files  |
|
|
|
under corrupted_wif put my private with the missing character and left "should be" empty like ' '
the file is on my desktop under folder called BTC1
Ok... then your "terminal" needs to be in the 'BTC1' directory, when you run the python command, otherwise it won't be able to find the script On MacOSX, the path to your desktop folder BTC should be something like: /Users/YOURUSERNAME/Desktop/BTC1
so if you use the command: cd /Users/YOURUSERNAME/Desktop/BTC1
You should see the command prompt change and show you the BTC1 folder... then if you try to run the script again with: It should work. |
|
|
|
|
How are you actually linking the Ledger Nano S to Mycelium? Are you actually physically connecting the device to your mobile device with an OTG cable? Or are you entering your 24 word seed in Mycelium?
If you are not using the OTG cable... then you are doing it wrong and have compromised the Ledger Nano S seed by entering it in Mycelium.
If you are using an OTG cable, then everything will be OK. Simply install Mycelium on the new device and "link" it to your Nano S the same way you originally did.
|
|
|
|
does not work in windows. does not recognize the options got it now btw.
how does a windows run of this should like., without the docker
thankxs
Seems like you need some extra work to made "typescript" files (aka .ts) stuff work in Windows... I found this on stackexchange: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33535879/how-to-run-typescript-files-from-command-lineIt "sort of" works... in that it compiles to .js using tsc (with errors)... and I can then run with "node"... but I don't think it's working 100% correctly... it'll spit out vanitygen seeds, but it seems to be "finding" weird combinations that I didn't request, and I don't seem to be able to stop it with CTRL+C etc... Might be easier to use VirtualBox or similar to run it using a Linux VM+docker etc |
|
|
|
I sent a transaction on Thursday night in the middle of big network stampede when the price broke $9K... using a fee of 1 sat/byte... 168 sats total fee and it "only" took 4 days to get a confirmation You can consolidate your coins whenever you like... doesn't just need to be when fees are low... just don't expect it to be fast! |
|
|
|
Go with Abdussamad's suggestion, it's the easiest and quickest way to get your coins out of the shitbucket that is blockchain.com and into your Bitcoin Core wallet:  Make sure that box is NOT checked! and then click the "Create new receiving address" button... then send the funds from blockchain.com to the address generated. |
|
|
|
failed please help - can't open file 'corrupt_wif.py': [Errno 2] No such file or directory cannot open file
Did you actually copy/paste the code from the earlier post into a file and did you name that file corrupt_wif.py? If so, where is that file? |
|
|
|
My computer crashed, know a new computer. so today I download Electrum but immediately on install it request a password.
If you started Electrum, and it immediately asked for a password, then it found an already existing wallet file to open. When you say "a new computer" where did you get this computer from? Was it brand new from a store? an old computer that you already had? borrowed from a friend? If you want to restore your old "account" (i think you mean wallet)... then when you see the password screen... change the wallet name to something else like "RecoveredWallet" and click next:  Electrum will tell you the file does not exist and to press next to create it:  You can then restore it using the "Standard Wallet -> I already have a seed" option:  
I'm sorry, but what the hell are Crypto Chaos Cards?
Seems to be some sort of mnemonic "encryption" system... https://cryptochaoscards.com/https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cryptochaoscards.android.app&hl=en_US |
|
|
|
The whole thing is interesting to me from the perspective of those who deliberately mix words in case their backup is stolen, which according to the author of this video makes no sense.
An interesting video for sure... it demonstrates the futility of using this "system" to try and obfuscate your seed words. However, there are a couple of caveats that do need to be noted... Aside from knowing the 12 words... you also need to know: 1. The wallet that was being used 2. The coin-type that was being used 3. An address from the wallet 4. A rough idea of the index# of that address He kind of glosses over the fact that if the address you have is not one of the earlier addresses (ie. index < 10), then the time required to find the correct combination can increase quite significantly. The creation of the seed permutations themselves is trivial... you're simply rearranging 12 'tokens' and, as jackg pointed out, with 12 words you only have 479,001,600 possible permutations. The "heavy lifting" is the part where you need to take those 12 words, convert them to binary to form the seed, then generating X number of private keys, then derive the public key/address from those private keys and then compare that with the example address you have provided. I wonder what the effect on his "ETAs" would be, if part of your strategy (in addition to scrambling your seed) was to start using addresses at say index 10, or index 20... or index 100? |
|
|
|
The last thing requested by them, was to have an account with blockchain.com with a minimum amount of 3.141887 BTC in balance and after I do this I can actually withdraw my balance,
This account on blockchain.com was not created by you was it? They created it for you and then gave you the username and password (or they told you to set one up, and then import an address)... correct? The whole "needing to deposit to be able to withdraw" is one of the oldest entries in the crypto-scammers playbook I am fairly confident in making the assertion that this is 1000% a scam. DO NOT put any more money into this ridiculous scheme. Whatever you have already "invested" is lost... you're not getting it back. Walk away now. |
|
|
|
|
As far as I'm aware... it doesn't generate an "out file". It simply displays the results to the screen/terminal/stdout etc. You need to write it down or lose it forever if the command/terminal window is closed.
Saving it to a file would probably be a "bad idea"™ anyway, as it might leave traces of your seed behind on the file system.
|
|
|
|
But what happened to the coins that were in the private keys that were not 'funded'? Because the transactions record that coins went to that private address.
Or were they just amalgamated at some point in the course of transactions? I just want to make sure I didn't lose coins somewhere.
The short answer is that you spent them When you send coins out, Electrum (unless instructed otherwise using coin control or privacy features etc) will generally select the most 'efficient' set of UTXOs that makes up the amount to be sent, while minimising the size of the transaction... That is to say... assume you have: 1AddressA = 0.00012448 1AddressB = 0.00145671 1AddressC = 0.00248822 1AddressD = 0.00292394 In the background you'd actually have something like 25+ addresses automatically generated, so: listaddresses - Would show 25+ keys listaddresses("funded") - would only show the 4 addresses with coins, A,B,C & D Now let's say you want to send 0.004 BTC to Bob... You don't have any UTXOs of 0.004 (or more), so the wallet has to combine several. It could use any of the following combinations: A+B+C 0.00406941 B+D 0.00438065 C+D 0.00541216 A+B+D 0.00450513 A+C+D 0.00553664 A+B+C+D 0.00699335 Let's say that Electrum decides to use B+D... it'll "spend" the UTXOs on those addresses (remember, in bitcoin you have to spend the whole amount, you don't spend partials), and then send 0.004 to BTC to Bob and return any leftovers (- transaction fee) to a change address... so you'll end up with: 1AddressA = 0.00012448 1AddressB = 0.00000000 1AddressC = 0.00248822 1AddressD = 0.00000000 1Change1 = 0.00037800 (0.00038065 - an imaginary 265 sat transaction fee) Now if you do: listaddresses() - you'd see exactly the same number of addresses as before listaddresses("funded") - you would only see THREE addresses... A, C & Change1... because they're the only ones that currently contain coins.Scenario 2. If Electrum had used A+B+C+D... your wallet would now look like this: 1AddressA = 0.00000000 1AddressB = 0.00000000 1AddressC = 0.00000000 1AddressD = 0.00000000 1Change1 = 0.00299000 (0.00299335 - an imaginary 335 sat transaction fee) And if you did: listaddresses() - You'd still see exactly the same number of addresses as before... ie. ALL of your addresses listaddresses("funded") - You'd now only see ONE address... Change1... as... that is the only address with coins in it.
All that being said, it might be easier to visualise with the GUI. If you haven't already, enable the filter on the "addresses" tab.:  Then you can set to: - "All" + "All" - shows EVERY address (ie. zero balance, non-zero balance and zero transactions etc.)  - "All" + "Unused" - Shows only addresses that have a zero balance and a zero number of transactions.  - "All" + "Funded" - Shows only addresses that have a non-zero balance - "All" + "Used" - Shows addresses that have a zero balance, but also have a non-zero number of transactions (ie. they did have coins in them at some point, but they are now empty)  NOTE: you will always have "unused" addresses because Electrum, by default, has a gap limit of 20. So you will always have at least 20 "zero balance and zero transaction" addresses. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise, that "funded" will return less than "All"... even if you have only ever received coins and never spent any. |
|
|
|
I went in with 1000US$ and had to upgrade my account and spent a considerable amount so far and still haven't seen any money back.
From what this guy says, there are procedures that the platform take which involves payment of taxes for you to actually get the first withdrawal in hand. I've had enough from them and I'm still trying to get the rules and regulations of this platform so I can close the account. But I can't find any information on the guy or this platform.
So, you've given money to someone for an "account on a platform" that you can't actually access? You are 110% being scammed and have been from the start. Had known 2 sources who talked really well about this guy and got to start in the Bitcoin through him.
Who are these 2 sources? Do they have accounts on Bitcointalk? He introduced himself as a trader from a deep web platform who can actually get me 60-70% returns on his trading.
To paraphrase the well known quote... " Greed cometh before the fall"... 60-70% returns? That is just ludicrous... there is another well known saying "If it looks too good to be true, it probably is". At this point, you need to accept that your money is gone and you're not going to get it back. Whatever you do, DON'T send these people any more money. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
