I guess they'll fall into the same group as the "Didn't read the 2FA explanation dialog and are now wondering why they are now 'missing' 0.001 BTC" users.

You just can't help some people

Assuming they lug some laboratory equipment with them while breaking into my secure apartment building... and they know precisely where my hardware wallet is stored... assuming, as you say, that they even know I have one in the first place!

That's why I said "somewhat theoretical"... Yes, it's possible... but is it really probable? For me... the answer would be "No". I think it would be more likely that my wallet/phone would be stolen from my pocket/bag while I was out and about during the day... and I'm not terribly worried about that either.

While I will admit that it is a huge flaw in the design of the Trezor, this is not exactly a doomsday scenario that everyone seems to want to make it... Put on a "decent" passphrase (which isn't that difficult or annoying to use) and the entire thing essentially becomes a moot point anyway.

For anyone with enough coin stored on a Trezor to be worried about losing it... then simply switching to a Ledger or Coldcard or another hardware wallet shouldn't be a massive issue.

While messing about with Electrum 4.0.0a0... I stumbled across a relatively minor change which I think is actually a huge improvement to the UI and might help prevent some confusion for new users:



A simple change that I think clearly shows the difference between opening an existing wallet file and creating a new one when you start up. Thoughts?

With a fairly large nudge from the puzzle poster... I finally managed to get it... had tried all sorts of things like:

0103
0301
Jan3
3Jan
Date
BDAY
TALK
1BTC
POKD
ZERO
and a bunch of other stupid answers when it was obviously... KEYS...

0.02000000 ETC claimed.

Thanks for the puzzle... even if I am a dumbarse!

As per pooya87's instructions...



Compiled it up on my Ubuntu VM... and we end up with:



and this:



and this:



I'm wondering if maybe a "privacy" switch of some sort in the settings might be one way to deal with this...

---

EDIT: Indeed... it's fairly simple to add one in    :



Currently requires a restart (or the closing and re-opening of wallet files) if you change the setting though... as I can't figure out how to force the main window to "update" the statusbar info immediately... I'm guessing there is probably a way to do it, but I'm not overly familiar with the Electrum code base... just enough to be "dangerous"

At what point did you give "the organisation" your email address so they could contact you?


You mean except for Twitter, GitHub, IRC and Reddit?

Did you look here: https://electrum.org/#community

There are multiple ways to contact the Electrum Devs and/or Community to seek assistance.

Are you talking about the "hack" reported by Kraken Labs? Fairly sure that only applies to Trezor wallets... Ledger wallets do not suffer from that issue due to the use of the Secure Element.

Yeah I saw this article on my newsfeed the other day... and was like "Wasn't this already done and discussed?"

Seems that Kraken just reproduced what Ledger already did... and said what we already know:
If you use a Trezor, make sure you are using the passphrase feature!


Although, the "requiring physical access to the device" part makes this "attack" somewhat theoretical for most people...

This is still driving me mental!

I've been trying different combinations relating to the "birth" of bitcoin with the Genesis Block on January 3 2009... Still not getting any where

Is there a new "scam" and/or stolen wallet .zip file doing the rounds or something?


Two different users... same wallet... same problem.

Is someone post/merit farming? Or is this a case of a "hacked"/stolen wallet doing the rounds and newbies buying into a scam?




I find it VERY suspicious that two different users have the exact same, and very unique, wallet file name...

Yeah... I'm only really holding on because I want to see the "platform" that the bot maker keeps going on about and these other bots (apparently there are six in total) that all have different levels of aggressiveness.

At this stage, the bot is "stuck" in another trade... has been holding a Long position for nearly 17 hours so far, while the price has been slowly trending downwards... It had a small "win"  of 0.00082318 XBT, which equates to 1.8%... but due to the price slowly trending down the last 17 hours... it now has a small loss on the current position, so that small gain has the potential to disappear completely if the stoploss at 9116 gets hit:

---

Orders from current activity:



Trades from current activity:

Thanks for the offer to join, but to be honest this didn't get the support or traction that I had hoped for.

Sadly, I think we might have missed the pump and I'm not sure we'll get 10 people on board any time soon... but I'm still keen to try.

Not on this forum...

I've seen too many bun fights break out here in Meta and on Reputation, where someone will say something that is simply "incorrect" (for whatever reason)... and the response is inevitably "That's a LIE!!!!!11!!11!1!!!ONEELEVEN!!!!!"

Then the "Tells lies, is untrustworthy" red tags start... and the next thing you know we have about 23983475893653456407498 threads titled something like "REEEEEEEEEEEEE <insert name> tells LIES and is ABUSING TRUST"

Apparently nobody makes mistakes around here... instead they're all deliberately intending to deceive


Kudos to Theymos for attempting to clarify (again) what his thoughts are on Trust and Flags... The very muddy water is slightly less muddy

As I suspected, it's pretty much just a "rubber stamp" exercise and doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things... seems somewhat akin to these websites that promote the fact they have SSL certificates to try and look more legit... not necessarily a bad thing that, in this case at least, they will have supposedly provided some information to authorities, but it doesn't actually provide much in the way of "protection" really.

Hopefully their fees/rates become a bit more reasonable... seems like both the margins and transaction fees are quite high.

Walletexplorer.com is limited in that it only works if the addresses are "linked" by being included as inputs in the same transaction(s)... so if you have addresses that have never been used together, they won't be linked and walletexplorer will not consider them to be part of the same "wallet".

For instance, if you have:
AddressA
AddressB
AddressC

and you use UTXO-AddressA + UTXO-AddressC in a transaction to send someone some BTC... then walletexplorer.com will show that "YOUR_WALLET" only has addresses AddressA and AddressC... it has no way to link AddressB.

It isn't useful for attempting to identify the balance of a wallet... it's only really useful for identifying "linked addresses"

yeah... wrong wording on my behalf, I didn't mean checkout... I meant build... if I look in my "fresh clone" directory... cat electrum/version.py shows version 4.0.0.a0, but for some reason, when running the build.sh, it is only building 3.3.8 version??!?

EDIT: disregard, it's just naming the output file incorrectly... it is in fact building the 4.0.0a0 version:


I transferred the "3.3.8" portable .exe file out of the Ubuntu VirtualBox and ran it on the Windows 10 host

Just FYI, today I installed a fresh copy of Ubuntu (18.04.3) into Oracle VirtualBox... then basically followed the instructions on the Electrum Github under Development Version step by step...

I literally copy/pasted the commands into the Ubuntu terminal window, with the only modification being that I used sudo -H python3 -m pip install .[fast] as when I originally tried it with just "python3 -m pip install .[fast]", it spat out a "permission denied" at the end.

NOTE: I also had to install git, python3-pip and curl (and possibly one or two other things that I've forgotten)... as I think I chose the "minimal" Ubuntu install.

Anyway, after I had Electrum cloned and "installed"... I then followed the instructions on the contrib/build-wine/README.md page... again, copy/pasting the commands as shown to install docker, build the image and then build the Windows binaries.

et voilà...



Now I just have to work out how to get it to build the 4.0.0a branch... which doesn't seem to exist any more

But oddly, when I run Electrum within the VirtualBox, it runs 4.0.0a??!?

Looking past the "closed source" thing for a second... It's great that they're "licensed" and all:


But this is the bit that concerns me:
Not sure what legal recourse one would have regarding a company based in Estonia?


Additionally, the fees seem quite excessive... and a little vague:
Noting of course that this for "fiat" transactions (not simply moving crypto in or out)


Also, the wallet has a limited number of countries that they are able to conduct fiat->crypto transactions with: https://ownrwallet.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/44001816455

---

I'm sure there will be "open source or not at all" users... but I wouldn't have any issues with users promoting this wallet.

Still, competition is healthy, so good on them... as with DaveF, I'd probably not use it... not because of the closed source thing, but simply because I don't need a "multicoin" wallet, and my current wallet solutions on desktop/mobile are adequate to my needs (and open source )

Hard to put a firm number on "the dangers of using this wallet"... No better/worse than other multicoin offerings like Exodus/Jaxx/Coinomi would be my "rating".

So, following the 0-2 win over West Ham, we're 19 points clear... and Liverpool have now beaten every team in the top flight league in a single season. First time in the club's 127 year history!




Only 8 more wins (24 points) required from 14 games and the title is ours... #YNWA