The reason to change the password is to have a different password.

The wallet file itself is encrypted using a randomly created master key. This master key is then encrypted with a derivation (using SHA512) from the password.

Therefore changing the password doesn't change anything inside of your wallet (besides how to decrypt the master key (which is used to encrypt/decrypt the sensitive information)).


If someone has access to your old wallet file, he can access it using the old password.
The same wallet file with a changed password is basically the same wallet, just accessible with a different password.

The fact that your transaction history disappeared too, means that there is a syncing/network issue.

If you have your recovery phrase, your BTC are NOT lost.

You can verify this (if you still know the address) by visiting a blockchain explorer [1]. Enter your address and you'll see how much BTC are associated with it.

Breadwallet does support BIP32 / BIP39. This means you can import your mnemonic code phrase into any other compatible wallet (e.g. electrum for desktop).
You'll be able to see and access your coins there if you don't want to wait for an update of breadwallet.


Also, please make sure to never store more money on your mobile than you would carry around in your pocket.



[1] e.g. https://live.blockcypher.com/ or https://www.blockchain.com/

The UI looks pretty nice (at least from the pictures on the website; non-US user here).

But is there a good reason to NOT open source the project ?
Because this is a wrong message, especially for a bitcoin wallet.

Using closed source wallets implies that the user HAS to trust the developer (to not be malicious AND to be competent enough to code it properly).

Creating software for a decentralized and open-source protocol, which itself is closed source.. just feels extremely wrong.


I doubt anyone with security in mind will use your wallet for more than just one try with a few $ worth of BTC.


Also, do you have any reports regarding the security of your wallet ? Audits ? Or shall the user blindly trust your competence as a developer ?

What version of armory are you running ? The latest is 0.96.4 and can be downloaded from https://btcarmory.com/ (only).

Also, did you make sure to run it with python2 instead of python3 ?Because it is written using python 2.

You can check this by typing the following into a terminal:

If it returns 2.X.X, you are fine. If it returns 3.X.X, you need to explicitly call it by using:

You can check whether python2 is correctly installed by typing:

This should return 2.x.x

John is using CPU cracking. That's probably not even worth a try.

You should try to crack the password with your GPU (e.g. btcrecover is able to use your GPU).

But without any clue what the password might be AND it being longer than 6-7 chars, your chances are pretty much zero.
If you, however, do have a clue what the password might be (this includes information such as length (minimum and maximum length), char set (e.g. only alpha numerical), common patterns (e.g. always 123 at the end), etc..) your chances rise drastically. Even with a longer password.

You could use an up-to-date version of core and apply (not copy / paste) the changes to the new version.
This would be the preferred way.

I'd suggest to never use outdated software (especially not a 3+ year old software). Particularly if it is a software which directly handles value (BTC in this case).


Also, you are referring to the guide as 'the guide'. Can you give us a link so we can take a look at it ?

Of course it doesn't.
If this would produce a random output, OP wouldn't be able to ever reproduce this exact private key.. This is completely out of question..

The whole purpose of a hash function is to represent an input of any length as a sequence of X bits (depending on the hash function; 256 bit in case of sha256).
 

This topic is about creating a brain wallet in a reproducible way (e.g. a few years later without direct access to the original software used) and not how to create a random private key properly.

Brainwallets are the worst way to store coins, but that's not the topic here.

The switch of SD cards is not hardware level at all. It doesn't protect anything from being written onto the SD. It is just a flag which says "please dont write, regard this as read-only".
Each program / OS can decide whether to follow this or not.


You still didn't answer my question. What do you want to achieve with the write protected SD card ?
Write protect against WHO or WHAT ?

You CAN NOT protect an SD card from being written onto on a hardware level. This is technically NOT possible. You would need to use a writeblocker between your computer and the SD card to access it as 'write protected'.

Therefore.. WHY do you want it to be write-protected ? What is the exact reason ?


This seems to be a XY problem.

Uff.. First i thought you might have really found a bug (which might have been not as severe as you thought it to be).

But those two statements, just proved that you don't have a clue at all.


Troll post confirmed.

Don't bother to contact OP or discuss this with OP. He obviously is trolling and doesn't know what he is talking about.

He clearly mentioned he wants to do it on a hardware-level, exactly 2 posts above yours:



OP, just to make sure:
Are you trying to protect it that the user on your system won't be able to 'accidentally' (or maliciously) write to your sd card ?
Or do you want to protect the sd card that way, that noone will ever be able to write onto that sd card again ?


Some SD cards do have a switch which basically is a flag that tells the system that this is in read-only mode.
However, the system decides itself if it follows this convention or not.


On a hardware level, there is nothing you can do to truly protect your sd card from being written onto.
You could use a write-blocker and always access this sd card via a write blocker.
In this case there won't be a possibility to write onto it. But taking the sd card out and plugging it into a linux will still allow to write onto it.

The correct approach fully depends on what you want to achieve.


May you explain what EXACTLY you want to achieve ?

Well, basically use the same software you have used to create your brainwallet (which is not as secure as a random seed btw).

The easiest would probably be to simply use a hash function (e.g. sha256).

Hash your 'brain seed', and use this hash as the private key.


But please note, that the humans brain is extremely bad at generating random stuff. The entropy will be by far(!) lower compared to using a RNG.
Even if you believe your phrase is not crackable.. it most probably is.




The private key can be used in any wallet. It is just the 'seed' (better: your brain wallet words) which are not accepted in any wallet.

Use pastebin.com or a similar service.

I doubt the majority will download a file just to look at your debug.log.

Still, i get Your client does not have permission.

What are you trying to share anyway ?




It shouldn't be excluded that there is a bug/vulnerability which would allow to do this.
Even though it seems quite strange that he is uploading a file instead of sharing the general approach publicly, the possibility of such a bug still exists (even if the possibility is extremely low).


@OP:
What about explaining the general approach here ?
How do you think can you 'circumvent' the decryption of the keys ??

If you claim the encryption itself is weak or buggy, i do also not believe you.
And currently i don't see another way to access the encrypted keys without the decryption key 

This fully depends on the quality of the code.

There are multiple approaches to have malware function harmless when being analyzed (in a sandbox, VM, by AV etc.. ), but functioning harmful when being executed on a real system.

There are also multiple approaches to have malware being regarded as some harmless program by AV's (e.g. using a packer will only reveal the real functionality when being run, not in a static code analysis).


If anyone is up to pay for it, i will gladly demonstrate it by creating some kind of software which will harm your machine while not being detected by any kind of AV.
I would of course not recommend to run such a software on main system.

As mentioned, the 'Amount' field describes the exact output.

Fees are being added to this amount when sending the transaction.

You also have the option to preview the transaction before signing/broadcasting it ('preview' button).
There you will be able to see the exact addresses, amounts and fee of the transaction before sending it.

Virus scans are worthless. They only check for signatures and maybe some behavior analysis.

Anyone who has invested more than a few hours into reading how AV's work, knows how to code malware which will not be recognized as such by an AV.


Do what jackg and check the signature of the file. If it is a valid file, either your system is compromised or you were on a malicious website which made use of the known electrum vulnerability (of old versions).

I don't know how often you want to hear it..

Install core and load your wallet.dat into it. You do NOT NEED to sync the blockchain.

Then simply check the addresses on a block explorer or import the private keys directly into electrum.

This takes 5 minutes maximum. The fact that you are still asking the same question after 20 days shows that you don't even appreciate any suggestions.
I wouldn't expect anyone else to help you with this if you don't want to accept the fastest and easiest approach.

You should start reading the posts you are quoting.

wallet.dat files are used by bitcoin core, not by electrum. Electrum wallet files do not have any extension.

All 3 proposed options do NOT work in this case.

To be honestly.. i don't believe this.

Address verification is a pretty simple process which either works always or never.
It is hard to believe that the software 'somehow' isn't able to verify addresses properly.

Please post the addresses here, for us to see if it is a proper address and whether it gets accepted by a nano s (to verify your claims).


Also, what OS and what versions of software are you running ?

You need either (1) the original seed or (2) the password of your wallet file to access your coins.

If you are sure that you don't have the first one (which you should have backed up on paper as instructed in electrum) and don't really remember the password, your only way is to try to bruteforce it.

If you have a clue what it might be, and the password isn't that long (i.e. less then 8-10 chars), you might have a chance finding the correct password using btcrecover.


But if you don't have a clue what your password might be or it is longer than 8-10 chars, your chances are pretty much zero