1st the dump...after a bounce back not strong enough and maybe now the second wave..maybe we see 2nd bottom for today? who knows...fingers crossed!
Soooooo downward it is... lets hope we get level stable again soon. Question for the people who actually know about these things: where is the next support we're gonna hit if this keeps going? oh wow, it is going down sooooooo much. i think it went down ALMOST ONE PERCENT in the last 24 hours. the end is near. crypto is dead. seroiusly folks, what tf are you talking about? sorry 60watt, my answer comes little late maybe but my answer comes with facts, not just bla bla bla or questions etc.... have a look the time that i made the posts and the price and look the charts... after that maybe it's more easy for you to understand what tf we was talking about   do you see the price went down clear now >?? or i need paint it for you?....?? The coindesk averaged price hasn't changed much since you made the first post you referred to at 01:29:07 PM,  This is the coindesk averaged price at 21:16 (at up by $2 since your first post it's almost the same).  Yes there was a $15 dump before you posted, but that's just weekend noise. It's already up $7 from the low of that dump. If it was a $100 dump it might be significant. |
|
|
|
1st the dump...after a bounce back not strong enough and maybe now the second wave..maybe we see 2nd bottom for today? who knows...fingers crossed!
Soooooo downward it is... lets hope we get level stable again soon. Question for the people who actually know about these things: where is the next support we're gonna hit if this keeps going? oh wow, it is going down sooooooo much. i think it went down ALMOST ONE PERCENT in the last 24 hours. the end is near. crypto is dead. seroiusly folks, what tf are you talking about? After the banks open tomorrow it's more likely to go up above a thousand Euros per Bitcoin than down. A few dumps over the weekend when the banks are shut isn't unusual. Fiat hitting exchanges tomorrow should push Bitcoin above a thousand Euros . |
|
|
|
Ok.
Thanks for this.
Is it only addresses(corresponding private keys) with positive balances, that I should import into Electrum? Or is it necessary to import all preceding keys, even ones which no longer contain a positive balance?
Or doesn't it matter?
You only need to import addresses(corresponding private keys) with positive balances. If you do that electrum will sync almost instantly. If you also import preceding keys which no longer contain a positive balance it doesn't matter unless there are a lot of them. If there's over a hundred electrum will probably take a while to sync, if there's over a thousand electrum will probably take a very long time to sync. I recommend you install electrum version 2.6.4 because the newer electrum 2.7.x versions are buggy. https://download.electrum.org/2.6.4/ |
|
|
|
number of unconfirmed transactions increasing pretty quickly, guess people will be talking about and block size again very soon
Bitcoin price is relatively flat and it's gone back down to 4676 unconfirmed-transactions now. That leaves nothing to talk about. |
|
|
|
So am I correct in saying multibit generates a key-pair for each distinct transaction?
Yes for every time you receive coins, and yes if you send some, but not all, of the coins in an address elsewhere because the change gets sent to a newly generated multibit change address. The list of keys generated, by your linked-to page, will show the keys - top to bottom - in the order in which the wallet would have generated them. Correct? So if that is the case, I'd expect to see the first transaction right at the top of the list.
Yes |
|
|
|
If you can't install mycelium you can use the instructions in the post linked below to generate individual private keys from each address you want from your multibit HD wallet, then import them into electrum using the instructions in the quote above. Yes, I gave that a go - using my wallet words - and it produces a list of keys as you said. I have a question though: what are the private keys it shows? Are they all the keys used to generate receiving addresses, in Multibit? And why is there an option at the bottom of the list to increase the size of the list? As though it could go on and on. The private keys it shows are the keys Multibit used to generate receiving addresses. The keys are all generated using the same wallet words, and Multibit can generate an almost unlimited number of them. I think it might be 2 32 = 4294967296 addresses. After you send coins to one address Multibit generates another.
How do I identify only the keys I'm interested in?
I suppose I could look at my MultibitHD transaction list(and match the public keys) but I'm not sure I understand the statuses of some of the transactions so I don't have a lot of confidence in my ability to collect the necessary addresses generated on your linked-to offline page.
It depends how many times your Multibit wallet sent or received coins. Each time it received it would have generated a new receiving address. Each time it sent some, but not all coins in an address it would have sent the change to the next down in another list of change addresses it generates. You could search in a block explorer like blockchain.info for addresses that contain coins, and only import those private keys into electrum. https://blockchain.info/Otherwise if there's too many addresses to search you could try importing giant lists of private keys generated by that webpage into electrum. If you made less than a hundred transactions from multibit you could import the first 100 private keys generated in the list of receiving addresses, together with the first 100 private keys generated in the list of change addresses. The more private keys you import into electrum, the longer it will take to sync. The post below says electrum kept crashing when importing 13000 private keys, but eventually synced after a long time. Importing anything above a few hundred keys will probably be time consuming. I tried to import almost 13000 private keys but Electrum is crashing each time... I've got them all in a single file, maybe I should try by spliting the file. So let say I import private keys in a wallet_1, is it possible to add more adress later in the same wallet_1 ? Or do I need to create a new wallet ? EDIT : Finally importing the 13000 private worked but took a while |
|
|
|
Byteballs needs more marketing to get more people in on every distribution rounds. Community should organize some kind of campaign.
There were a few signature campaigns, the last of which ended recently. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1760807.0If enough people contribute coins for another there would be plenty of sign ups to it. Getting enough coins to pay for it is the big problem. |
|
|
|
I've made a mistake while trying a test transaction (small amount). The fee that I've manually specified is apparently too small and the transaction is not being confirmed. I'm getting this error in Electrum wallet. Transaction id# 2fdf9644b29984e9fb707e3a473de022d1b6d6e1249c7cf948525c58b9d7f571  I don't see a way to abort this transaction and retry with a better fee. Just wondering how to get this transaction confirmed  Unless you have the Replace-By-Fee (RBF) feature enabled, I don't believe you can retry this transaction until it falls off on its own or confirms. You may be able to restore your seed into a new wallet where the transaction doesn't exist and douplespend it be able to send a transaction with a proper amount of fees though. RBF wasn't enabled. I've enabled it just now. Not sure if that's going to make any difference though. I've tried doublespending, but it looks like the new transaction didn't go through either. Transaction id# e553cd00e2130deb7151455975a71a97b6d49c412eb030d0af9e5c8b848f85a0 Maybe, I didn't perform this step right  Your new transaction included very very low fees as well. You only included 5.2 sat/byte in fees when the network wants about 140 satoshis/byte right now. I'd strongly recommend using the "Dynamic Fees" option within Electrum preferences. This will give you a slider to control confirmation speed based on fee size and better estimates accurate fees for transaction to help avoid these issues. I would do that for future transactions. For this one; Is this going to be confirmed anytime soon? You can either wait for the network to forget about it, or try to get it included in a block quickly. If you paste the transaction id into the page linked below the viabtc pool will include it in the next block it mines (provided not too many others are using that txaccelerator page at the same time as you). https://www.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/It looks like I can't. TXN accelerator gives this error.  If you pm macbook-air, or quickseller they might be able to get it included in a block for a fee. They all have access to a big mining pool. Click one of their names above, then fill out the form to send a pm. My fault I paid blockchain.info suggested amount and now it is stuck
any help to push it would be nice.
you can try to PM quickseller or macbook-air, they both have access to a pool, and can add tx's to the block they're currently working on.
I pm'd kano hopefully he will include it.
|
|
|
|
I've made a mistake while trying a test transaction (small amount). The fee that I've manually specified is apparently too small and the transaction is not being confirmed. I'm getting this error in Electrum wallet. Transaction id# 2fdf9644b29984e9fb707e3a473de022d1b6d6e1249c7cf948525c58b9d7f571 I don't see a way to abort this transaction and retry with a better fee. Just wondering how to get this transaction confirmed Unless you have the Replace-By-Fee (RBF) feature enabled, I don't believe you can retry this transaction until it falls off on its own or confirms. You may be able to restore your seed into a new wallet where the transaction doesn't exist and douplespend it be able to send a transaction with a proper amount of fees though. RBF wasn't enabled. I've enabled it just now. Not sure if that's going to make any difference though. I've tried doublespending, but it looks like the new transaction didn't go through either. Transaction id# e553cd00e2130deb7151455975a71a97b6d49c412eb030d0af9e5c8b848f85a0 Maybe, I didn't perform this step right Your new transaction included very very low fees as well. You only included 5.2 sat/byte in fees when the network wants about 140 satoshis/byte right now. I'd strongly recommend using the "Dynamic Fees" option within Electrum preferences. This will give you a slider to control confirmation speed based on fee size and better estimates accurate fees for transaction to help avoid these issues. I would do that for future transactions. For this one; Is this going to be confirmed anytime soon? You can either wait for the network to forget about it, or try to get it included in a block quickly. If you paste the transaction id into the page linked below the viabtc pool will include it in the next block it mines (provided not too many others are using that txaccelerator page at the same time as you). https://www.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/ |
|
|
|
under what name ? I can't find it. When pascal coin was added to bitsquare.io it immediately showed in the installable client, but it took a week before it showed on the markets on the website. Byteball will probably show on the website's markets in another week. LAUNCHED FINALLY ON BITSQUARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's on there. You have to download their app to trade. It creates a TOR node and everything is done on the TOR network. |
|
|
|
Hi,
Installed Electrum 2.6.4 but not having much luck following your instructions. (Can't do bread because I don't have the pre-reqs for it)
You could try installing Mycelium if your phone doesn't have the pre-reqs for bread wallet. You can use MultiBit HD wallet words in Mycelium, but according to these github posts you have to use Mycelium's "Rescan Account" option afterwards to get it to show your balance. Those github posts were made in 2014/2015, so if mycelium has been improved since you might be able to skip the "Rescan Account" step. https://github.com/keepkey/multibit-hd/issues/687The addresses generated between Mycelium and MultiBit HD are the same for the Account 1.
Unfortunately there seem to be some optimisations in Mycelium that mean that they are not fully interoperable. Both Mycelium and MBHD have 'full rescans' where you (most likely) see everything but this is not practical for daily use. https://github.com/mycelium-com/wallet/issues/142I found my answer. "Rescan Account" option after selecting the account under accounts. Now I have all of account history back.
When I start the Electrum wallet, it asks for the seed words and when I enter them, I expect the 'next' button to become enabled, but it stays greyed-out.
You can't use Multibit HD wallet words in Electrum because one wallet generates compressed private keys from them, and the other generates uncompressed private keys. There is a way to import multibit HD wallet words into Electrum, but because it uses a different key format it generates different addresses to multibit HD from the same wallet words.
So... I tried backing out and opting for entering the 'master key'(just presume that 'Master' means 'public' because it doesn't say... ). Then I see the green light in the corner of the window (I'd upload a screenshot, here, to show what I see, but not having much luck finding out how to do that on this page). But then it just sits there, apparently doing nothing. No messages, no status bar changes, no errors... nada. If I click on the green network status light, it says getting block headers from 8 nodes. But there seems to be no downloading/synchronizing happening at all.
p.s. This is in watching only mode, as I thought I might be able to confirm the multibithd balance before I attempt to move/load anything. Not sure if that is why Electrum is leaving me high and dry. I realise this may be out of the scope of the original question but I'm asking in case this is a common problem with a known fix/explanation.
Importing a multibit HD master key into electrum won't work, but you can create a watching only wallet by following the steps below to import any standard Bitcoin addresses you want to watch. http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/faq.html#can-i-import-private-keys-from-other-bitcoin-clientsCan I import private keys from other Bitcoin clients?
In Electrum 2.0, you cannot import private keys in a wallet that has a seed.
If you want to import private keys and not sweep them you need to create a special wallet that does not have a seed. For this, create a new wallet, select “restore”, and instead of typing your seed, type a list of private keys, or a list of addresses if you want to create a watching-only wallet. If you can't install mycelium you can use the instructions in the post linked below to generate individual private keys from each address you want from your multibit HD wallet, then import them into electrum using the instructions in the quote above. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1785575.msg17859746#msg17859746 |
|
|
|
I never got an email & I had active accounts in 2014.
Did you make your accounts in late 2014, or early 2014? The receiver might only have an early 2014 backup. |
|
|
|
Then why has no one been caught for all these high profile thefts / hacks?
Why would they be? Mixers and things like monero (just a built in mixer on-chain) aren't illegal...yet. There will come a time when using a mixer will be a conviction for laundering by default and all transactions will be to and from fixed address alias systems. Everything outside of that will be considered criminal and the coins will be blacklisted. The side effect of a non-fungible currency = permissioned ledger. You're not getting around governments co-opting any digital currency system made. Even Satoshi says the same thing via two quotes: "bitcoin does not solve political problems" and "bitcoin will buy us only a few years". Where did Satoshi say that? Googling it resulted in nothing, and neither did a search of the white paper. Your search - satoshi "bitcoin will buy us only a few years" - did not match any documents. |
|
|
|
If a court liquidates OKccoin before the end of its withdrawal freeze the Bitcoins on the exchange could get locked up indefinitely, until a receiver shares them out. That would help maintain the supply/demand imbalance on other exchanges. There's not enough coins to satisfy demand as it is. |
|
|
|
Apparently they had a database backup from 2014. While all balance data was useless, there may have been some evidence to help incriminate Paul. It did however have an email list, so they emailed everyone so that they knew they could make a claim.
Where did you find that out? The only information I could find was in the receiver's fourth report, and the Court authorized notice regarding Proposed Partial Settlements. The receiver's fourth report says Big Vern destroyed the database and backup database on the servers on April 4, 2016, and the court notice says he destroyed all of Cryptsy database records. Neither of them mention earlier backups. http://cryptsyreceivership.com/v1/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Fourth-Report.pdfVernon apparently destroyed the database and backup database on the servers on April 4, 2016, the date of the Appointment Order and shortly after receiving notice of same. The database contained critical information regarding account holders’ identification and current and prior balances of coins, as well as where coins had been improperly transferred pre-receivership; http://cryptsyreceivership.com/v1/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Notice.pdfPlease note that it appears that Defendant Vernon or someone under his direction destroyed all of Cryptsy database records |
|
|
|
There is a LOT of buy support over the last few days, much higher than normal. Instead of 5, 10, or 20 blocks of coins being purchased, there's a steady stream of larger whale buys of 100 coins at a time. This indicates one of three things:
1) Someone is front running a Bitcoin ETF approval w/ insider trading
2) Someone has no idea if the ETF will be approved but is buying just in case
3) There were some insolvent Chinese exchanges that are now having to purchase at top dollar
I'd say number 3 seems like the probable answer. What do you think? Edit. It could be all of them! 3 of 3 And 4)... It could be neither of the 3 mentioned above. People just don't care about ETFs or Chinese exchanges. They want to have at least 1 full bitcoin. Maybe, but sometimes after a big exchange gets hacked it keeps it quiet and tries to make the lost coins back through the trading fee revenue. If the PBOC is auditing such an exchange it has to buy the lost coins back fast or get caught out. Options three plus people who want to have at least 1 full bitcoin could be jointly responsible for the latest step up to £1050. |
|
|
|
Samson Mow leaving BTCC: https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/832240183579856896Reason:"To move back to Canada to be with my family" Translation: "Because of the PBOC oversight bullshit I can't take my salary in BTC and easily repatriate it back to my family in Canada anymore, so I'm just going to pack up and move back permanently."   #lolofcoursekiddingbutnotkidding It's not like he rage quit or anything, the timing is pure coincidence. He wants to spend more time with his family.  |
|
|
|
How the hell can we prove what was in a Cryptsy account if the site vanished ?
I think the receiver still has access to some of the cryptsy wallets, but not the coins they used to contain, or the database showing who owned which coins. If you control a wallet that sent funds to cryptsy, you might be able to use that as proof. If you have records of withdrawals from another exchange that you used to send coins to cryptsy that might also be proof. The link below is to a site that guesses which addresses belong to exchanges. If you sent Bitcoins to cryptsy and have records of the transaction it might be proof (although I'm not guaranteeing it). https://www.walletexplorer.com/For example if you could prove you control the address 18bGmvmeg4XKwvgiuPbvoAHm8tLSGwUx1j you could use that site to find this linked transaction that shows it sent 0.11703953 BTC to 1AH3ib5EXkALcQWStP2783FB5ikNiBBSH7, which the site claims is a cryptsy address https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/a9a1bb3a6fa172fd5ffbf5d2d0b835277e6c5d1acbf5afd9113cad93381e336bI don't know how accurate that site's information is, or if would be suitable evidence for the receiver. Nevertheless, it might be worth trying. I think walletexplorer guesses which addresses belong to cryptsy based on taint analysis, and I'm sure it makes some mistakes, but if it shows you sent coins to cryptsy it's worth telling the receiver about it. |
|
|
|
I posted a question on this thread in April last year (2016) and managed to resolve the 'unconfirmed balance' problem with jim6181's help.
Now, I'm having the same problem except this time I have tried several times to repair wallet. Each time(but one) the process completed, and still all or a portion of the balance still shows as unconfirmed. The exact portion appears to change with each repair.
Please advise as appropriate.
Thanks,
Jim
There are some solutions to your problem in the post linked below. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1785575.msg17859746#msg17859746 |
|
|
|
I've been thinking about the same thing. Not sure if it's right, but this is what I came to. I think we've got two key drivers:
1. The percent chance the market believes funds will be made wholly available no later than March 15th. (depressive force)
2. The opportunity cost of not having access to one's coins for this span of time. (depressive force)
This first point is one that isn't a factor...until it is. As long as there is faith/trust that things will open on time, this factor will be close to zero. If/once is becomes non-zero, it could grow quickly.
We watched this play out on Gox. While elsewhere coins had a market value of $413, IIRC...we watched the price gap between GoxBux and other coins spread...$20, $30..$50 spread. As fear gripped the market in the final hours, price plummeted to just above $100 - over a 75% discount of 'real' coins.
To the second, this won't affect the long term HODLers. But those looking for the short term profits, I suspect, will become increasingly pressured to sell 'while the price is still good'. Those most afraid this 1000+ price point is temporary will feel increasing pressure to sell out of fear.
In the end, it always comes down to fear and greed.
If internationally, we saw prices diverging, and going up...then I think greed would take over, and risk-tolerant investors would inject cash into the chinese exchanges in order to buy 'cheap coins', knowing they will be inaccessible for up to a month, and knowing they run a risk of not getting what they put in. The extent we see this will be visible by buying volume on exchanges, and would counteract both of the above, depressive forces.
...however, with the ETF decision looming, I don't think we'll see such price divergence, but rather sideways action until the decision.
Good points. I agree that many people are taking a wait-and-see approach with so much up in the air. Both the ETF decision and the announced end of the withdrawal freezes are almost a month away. I also think we're headed mostly sideways for a few weeks yet. In the short term, I think we'll continue to see a very gradual creeping upward due to the temporary supply/demand imbalance from the freeze. The real action starts in March. Although there is an announced end of the withdrawal freezes, it comes with the caveat that the Chinese exchanges will be using enhanced AML/KYC procedures afterwards. If they adopt draconian AML/KYC procedures a significant percentage of their customers still won't be able to withdraw their Bitcoins because they won't have all the paperwork required to comply with draconian AML/KYC. That could sustain the supply/demand imbalance after the "end of" the freeze. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
