That's all you have?

#rinseAndRepeat... not that I really expected anything else... Just a never ending cycle of semantic games and then diversion from valid points of debate.

Yes... got the email about 5 minutes ago... but I'm having some issues with my newly installed robotic Richard Simmons security system (o_e_l_e_o winz 10 internetz!)...

or, more correctly... I'm still travelling and don't have access to the seed mnemonic, so I don't want to attempt to update in case it wipes the device

Did anyone actually install the 1.6 beta or even the new "live" 1.6? Thoughts/comments?

Does you wallet say "[2fa]" at the top?



If so, then using this service (Provided by a third party called TrustedCoin) has additional costs in addition to the normal network fee, refer: https://api.trustedcoin.com/#/electrum-help

You have to prepay either every 20 or every 100 transactions... and the fee for 20 transactions is a total of 0.001... which would seem to match the extra fee you are seeing.

From my understanding, this is not what you would call a "traditional" hardware wallet... but more of a mobile wallet (iOS and Android) that is secured using a hardware device (Yubikey).

https://blog.evercoin.com/evercoin-is-now-the-safest-wallet-exchange-f3c3eeb07d54

Seems they are attempting to make crypto/hardware wallets a bit more mainstream by aiming at the "mobile" market. I'm not sure about the backup methodology involving "shards" tho... one of which is emailed to the user!!?!

Hit me up if you still need those testnet coins... I should be able to loan you a couple for testing

Given the length of time passed... (6 years! ) I'd say that the chances are fairly high that you do indeed have the wrong password(s)

Having said that, did you tend to use any "non english" characters in your passwords? perhaps ones with accents like à á â ä ç Ø etc? or maybe "special" characters like |/\'?


Your options are essentially:

1. Continue trying to bruteforce the password using a script like "btcrecover"... may not be easy given you say you're not a "techuser"

or

2. Get someone else to try bruteforcing it for you... (NOTE: not sure I'd trust the one linked above... they claim MultiBit had a seed phrase that was hidden, when in reality it didn't... Multibit Classic was NOT an HD wallet, it just generated random private keys)... but there are other services that have a fairly good rep like Dave at https://walletrecoveryservices.com/

They've been in business a LONG time and have successfully helped a few people.


If you still have access to the computer and the .wallet and possibly .wallet.cipher files (any .key files? ) then it's possible that you *might* be able to decrypt the wallet file in other ways.

Most likely because your 486 is incredibly old... and perhaps your Ubuntu desktop PC is a newer chip? Possibly pentium class or higher? Without knowing the specifics of your pc, it's difficult to answer. In any case, I've not found a definitive list of cpu/gcc version compatibility.


It isn't "NOASM"... it's "No ASM"... as in "no inline assembly language". Inline ASM offers some performance benefits and coding shortcuts, but comes with some caveats... like CPU incompatibilities etc.

I would think that using various "-m options" could impact on things as well: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/x86-Options.html

If the person compiling the application has enabled various instruction set extensions that are not supported by your particular CPU.

If "PD" == Primedice... then on the primedice website, you need to go into "Settings -> Tokens"

Then you need to click the "reveal" button... this will show you your "API Key"... you should then be able to login through the dicebot using just your Username + API Key... leave the 2FA box blank if you have not enabled 2FA.

All of which would be valid... if you had mentioned at the time that it was a donation... however, you DIRECTLY responded to this:


Notice the use of the term "the fee"... to which you were more than happy to continue with your offer of service on and did not correct nor change. In effect, you accepted it as "a fee" by offering a 3 month timeframe, regardless of any terms and conditions specified elsewhere.

You can't point at a page on a website NOW and claim those are the terms and conditions that the contract is built on... unless you specified that at the time. Is it mentioned in any of the email correspondence that any payments received would be considered "donations"?

Nevermind the fact that the page you're quoting doesn't even show any contractual terms and conditions... it is just a page that says "if you like our service, you can donate here" and lists some addresses that someone could send a donation to. Not sure how that is at all relevant?

Short Version: #windows

Long Version: Most likely, during the network setup/config, you've selected an "innocent looking" option that has had unintended consequences... Things like marking a specific network as "Private" or "Public" can do all sorts of stupid things that you neither wanted nor are informed about

This seems to be the modus operandi of Windows in general... click "allow" on something and have it do that... and other things that you probably weren't notified about

Most likely, it is simply coincidence that your "BitAddress" folder has ended up "shared" and is not the result of anything overtly nefarious.

OP, it seems that you believe that an identical config should result in an identical local mempool across different/separate nodes.

As Carlton Banks has stated, that is a flawed belief, for the various reasons he has mentioned.

So, for some reason, OP is missing the bitcoind.exe file... Until that is rectified, they'll not be able to use bitcoin-cli.exe.

I would suggest that easiest solution is to simply try reinstalling the latest version of Bitcoin Core (refer: https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/)... and then once the installer has completed, verify that it extracted bitcoind.exe to the D:\Bitcoin\daemon directory properly.

The written contract has been shown... multiple times. Your decision to attempt to play semantic games arguing that emails are not "written" does not change this fact. And before you try, it has also been shown that multiple jurisdictions have legal rulings that allow terms set in emails to be considered as contracts.

As for all the "show me real world judgment relating to game protect" nonsense... you're just being silly. Obviously there are no "real world" judgments in this particular case... Exactly like your "self determination" that h4ns "owes" you €20,000 for "defamation", which you "ever so graciously" reduced to €19,790 count as a "refund". That doesn't count either.

So, you haven't actually refunded anything... which means you have in fact violated the written contract you had with h4ns, where you said you would recover his funds, or refund his €210... as outlined in the very first post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5183189.0

Unless of course you can show a "real world judgment" that indicates that you were awarded €20,000 in damages against h4ns... can you?

The OP mentioned it was a Blackberry DTEK device... which runs Android.


So, don't give up on finding your phone if you're unable to recover the data from the laptop.

To put it another way... your "wallet", is essentially like a safe that contains a keyring that has a bunch of safety deposit box keys on it.

Meanwhile the bitcoins are stored in various safety deposit boxes at a secure facility (aka "The Blockchain"™)...

So, to figure out how many Bitcoins you can actually control, you'd need to open up your safe, take out all the keys and then open every box that you have a key for. You can't simply look inside the safe and see a pile of "X.XX Bitcoins".

As Danny explained, this is what wallet software does... it tracks all the transactions being made on the blockchain, finds the ones that are related to the keys it controls and updates it's balance accordingly.

So, the "Wallet Inspector" you are looking for, is the software that created your wallet file... in this instance, Bitcoin Core (specifically, version 0.18.1 as indicated in your other thread)

For Bitcoin Core, you need to start the application, let it sync the blockchain (likely to take a couple of days)... and then once it is finished, it will be able to tell you what your "balance" is.

If you don't want to (or can not) sync the blockchain due to time/diskspace limitations... then you will need to find yourself a different wallet application that does not require a full blockchain download, and then you'll need to transfer your private keys to that.

Perhaps use the "helper" here to find a wallet that meets your specific requirements: https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet

There will likely always be "edge" cases that "break" any given set of rules... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Bill's was a particularly polarising instance... as there are a number of DT members with very firm opinions on account sales. Also, the way that the entire situation was handled by both sides wasn't particularly great in my opinion.

I was talking more of the "likes lemons" scenario  Having said that, I believe DarkStar_ has already exercised commonsense in a previous instance where a user was tagged for something that wasn't necessarily an attempted scam (I think it was HabBear from memory? ) they were given a chance to sort it out instead of just simply removing them from the campaign.

I guess my point is that the whole "not necessarily against the forums rules, but frowned upon"-type tagging can, in my opinion, be a bit harsh at times... especially when some members operate what is effectively a "zero tolerance with no chance of appeal" approach to trust.

Yes, but if you look at OPs 2nd post in this thread... he states he copy/pasted several addresses just fine... This was well before any mention of downloading/installing/running any AV/anti-malware software:

For the clipboardjacker to simply stop working is not something I've encountered before... not saying it isn't possible. Perhaps some malware author got clever and created a version that tries to avoid detection by only changing every "1 in X" addresses...

Is that "common sense" I am seeing?? on bitcointalk??!?

Seriously tho, as I read it, that seems like a relatively "sensible" update to the rules... removes the whole "feedback wars" scenario from play. That is to say, people aren't likely to get nuked from the campaign simply because they get on the wrong side of a DT1/2 member who gives them negative trust for something stupid and/or inconsequential...

Unfortunately, I can not decipher what it is that you are asking here. Can you please explain more clearly what you are wanting to do?

Perhaps if you included some examples of what you'd like, it might be helpful.

No... it is showing a bunch of "Potentially Unwanted Programs" aka PUPs... these are NOT necessarily viruses or trojans or malware... but annoying things that you may or may not want on your PC... vast number of these tend to be "Browser Helpers" or toolbars etc.

The super confusing part in all this is that the OP said he already tried copy/pasting multiple bitcoin addresses since this incident and they all copy and paste just fine... I've never seen a clipboard hijacker that only works "once" and then stops working??!?