Personally... I would just suck up the conversion fees and convert everything to BTC and then withdraw the BTC.

You'll likely find that trying to withdraw multiple currencies will result in multiple overpriced withdrawal fees (in some cases, given the tiny amount you're trying to withdraw, you'll end up spending most of it in "minimum withdrawal" fees )

The small % loss you take during the conversion will likely be a lot less than minimum withdrawal fees.

Additionally, BTC is pretty much universally accepted everywhere. There are very few exchanges (if any?) that don't accept BTC. The same cannot be said for a large number of altcoins that are only listed on a few exchanges.

It also means you don't have to fuck about with potentially dodgy altcoin wallets/services... especially given your propensity for making every process/decision you make regarding cryptocurrency into a giant 20 page thread of "what if?" scenarios. You have a Ledger, it supports BTC. Problem solved.


TLDR: convert everything to BTC. Withdraw BTC to your Ledger.

Sounds like your electrs server has not indexed the blockchain correctly... or indexed the "wrong" blockchain as nc50lc has suggested.

I've not had this issue with electrs... but then I don't think I've tried using testnet and mainnet at the same time

Given the amount of other people's transactions I've queried on various block explorers from hanging out in the Tech support and Beginners board... ChainAnalysis probably thinks I own more BTC than Satoshi Nakamoto

Seriously tho... I'm loving my little Raspberry Pi full node setup with a block explorer and electrum server running on it.

Depends on your specific requirements...

As a general rule of thumb, if you already use Electrum on the desktop and would like a "companion" app for your Mobile, then I'd recommend the Electrum android app. It isn't as full featured as the desktop app, but can be useful if you want to maintain a watching only Electrum wallet (as there aren't any other Android apps that I know of that support Electrum seeds).

Another decent android wallet is Mycelium... it has lots of nice features like hardware wallet support etc. One downside is the fairly obvious monetisation attempts by the devs with the "ads" tabs (aka "Businesses" and "Crypto Betting" etc) They have also had some rather dubious events in the past like the sketchy russian mining campaign and the "coloured coin" fundraising thing that raised millions that seemed to get spent on a "working holiday" for the dev team at the time etc.

The actual "Bitcoin Wallet for Android" (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.schildbach.wallet) which this board was actually originally about... (Surprise! This is not a generic "android wallets" board )... is also fairly robust but lacks a lot of the features of some of the other wallets.

A lot of the privacy focused folks like Samourai... I've not used the more recent versions, so I can't really comment.

That simply won't work. Armory doesn't "download the database with block chain files". It reads the block data that Bitcoin Core has downloaded and uses that to build it's databases.

You also can't use Armory to install Bitcoin Core.

It really doesn't matter which order you install them in... If both components (Bitcoin Core and Armory) are setup correctly, it should work... it's just handy if you already have Bitcoin Core installed, running and fully synced (without pruning), prior to trying to get Armory running as it means that Armory will have access to all the data it needs to function correctly.

Can't say I have had this problem with Trezor Suite or the Firmware updates before. Whenever I've done either, they always seem to work without any issue at all.

I'll try again tomorrow when I'm home and see if I have any issues with the 1.10.2 update.

In that case, the simplest solution would be to generate the addresses from the private keys (legacy, nested SegWit and native SegWit)... and then cross-reference/lookup those addresses in the "funded bitcoin addresses" data available here: http://addresses.loyce.club/

have fun!

One of the core tenants of Bitcoin was to give you complete control of your coins. Why would you want to use a custodial wallet? Is there some benefit that you believe they offer over a non-custodial wallet like Bitcoin Core or Electrum or similar?

When you "encrypt the wallet.dat", you're not actually doing a full file encryption. You are only encrypting certain records in the database file (for instance, the private keys, seed etc).

Other records like public keys, addresses etc are not encrypted. This is why you can start Bitcoin Core and load a wallet file without the wallet password. The password is only required for any actions that require the private keys to be decrypted (signing a transaction, signing a message, dumping private keys etc)

There are other wallets that do use a full file encryption option... Electrum is an example of this. If the full file encryption option is used, you cannot open the wallet at all without the wallet password.

Is this a list of private keys you already have that you want to check... or are you wanting to someone magically find private keys that have a balance so you can "steal" it?

If it's the first... how many private keys are you wanting to check?

Do you have listen=1 in your bitcoin.conf or are you using -listen=1 on the command line? If not, that would probably explain the lack of incoming connections.

Why would you need to waste time and effort creating a method to encrypt a seed when you already have plenty of perfectly adequate (and proven) encryption systems for encrypting "plain text"?

As for supporting Electrum... Electrum already has perfectly functional wallet file encryption. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm not sure what it is that you're attempting to achieve here?

Your question essentially comes down to this: "help me, some site I used over 10 years ago, that I don't remember might have something of mine, does anyone know what this place might have been called and if it still exists"

Do you understand how utterly ridiculous that request is?

Depends on what you mean by "cancel"... there isn't really a way to "cancel" any valid bitcoin transaction. With "Replace-by-fee" (RBF), you're able to replace a transaction with another one with some certain caveats... like increasing the fee etc.

Without the RBF flag being set to true, then you would need to attempt a "classic" double-spend to replace the transaction. While it's not strictly impossible it can be quite difficult.

What is foundation for your question? Are you wanting to know if having RBF disabled offers some sort of guarantee?

Sorry for the slow reply... been dealing with some real life stuff this week, like a leak in my bathroom ceiling from the apartment upstairs

Anyway, I'll try and take a look at your logic over the weekend and see what I can come up with.

Reminds me of the fix for the Nexus 7 tablet Autorotation not working any more... you had to push on the back of the case in a certain spot... so you popped the case open and put in a little cardboard shim to make sure the ribbon cable connecters were making a solid contact

Still... for a device that costs as much as the Nano X does, this should not be happening... the build quality and/or QA Testing is seriously lacking

What did you download? and where did you download it from?

I vaguely remember that there were some "fake" Bitcoin Diamond wallets that stole seeds/keys... The "official" site seems to be: https://www.bitcoindiamond.org

The download page is: https://www.bitcoindiamond.org/download/

There are various options there... but you'll be wanting the one underneath the "Electrum Wallet" heading. The "Qt" wallets are the full node wallets that require downloading the blockchain etc.

"Multi Wallets" don't tend to offer console versions with APIs etc... they tend to be focused on the "lowest common denominator" and offer shiny mobile/desktop wallets for users wanting to deal with all the altcoins etc.

If being able to interact programmatically with the wallet is an essential requirement, you might need to consider looking at some of the custodial offerings (ie. exchanges) that have comprehensive APIs etc.

The downside (aside from the custodial nature and lack of control of keys etc) being that fees and minimum amounts associated with exchanges can be pretty brutal... for instance I just looked at withdrawing from an exchange and their minimum fee is hard coded at 0.00020000 BTC!!?! That's like ~US$10 (even with the dump in BTC price just now)...

It seems that Bittrex want to establish some sort of link between your friend's name/email address and the bitcoin address that they either deposited from or withdraw coins to.

That's probably going to be quite difficutl, as most wallets don't really use email addresses or account names to access things


I would say that LoyceV's suggestion is probably going to be the best bet... see if Bittrex will accept a signed message from an address that was used to deposit funds to the Bittrex account.

You friend could use a message like:

It's worth a shot...assuming your friend was depositing from a wallet that allows access to private keys or provides a way to sign messages.

Honestly, your friend's memory may not be 100% accurate at this point in time... The additional transactions for the smaller amounts were after the 49.5 BTC transaction (the 2nd was about a week later, the 3rd about a month later):

1st transaction (49.5 BTC) from 13uz to 1EF3: 2016-12-13 17:36
2nd transaction (0.00077700 BTC) from 13uz to 1EF3: 2016-12-21 13:12
3rd transaction (0.00066600 BTC) from 13uz to 1EF3: 2017-01-11 11:44


13uz also made a final send transaction 2-3 months later on 2017-03-27 07:45 for 0.00481440 BTC: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/893680213545774061c9b2ff3e0ab08e126a03e3a1f188cdbbb6f4a0aa6597b2


It seems highly unlikely that if your friend made these transactions, that they did not notice they were missing 49.5 BTC at that time!!?!