I have all keys to all three wallets. I created all wallets with vanitygen so I did not use any specific software. I could use either core or electrum or sign a transaction offline and broadcast it from a USB pendrive.
Then you can do exactly what you want... follow nc50lc's advice... use Electrum or Bitcoin Core, it doesn't really matter. They'll both achieve the same thing. Hell, you could probably even do it with https://coinb.inAlthough, you would be well advised to make sure you have an offline computer for handling the private keys and signing... and an online computer for creating the initial transaction and broadcasting of signed transaction(s). |
|
|
|
At that moment would the change address in theory still be pre-determined from wallet.dat or did it generate based off the seed of the second computer?
The seed is stored in the wallet.dat itself... it is wallet specific. Copies of a wallet.dat should contain the same seed. Thank you. I completed the dump and am doing the console rescanblockchain which is indeed taking hours. I will look into electrum in the meantime, but no rush so I may just wait it out overnight. CHEERS!
Did you look through the "dumpedwallet.txt" for the (change) address in question? Namely, 36PSz3n9gj45GqHNPWEfDsxmZWXcnuFG3yDid you create and send the transaction from the commandline as well? or did you use the GUI?  |
|
|
|
I mean why not you just send 1+tx fee from wallet #1 to wallet #3 so that wallet #3 receives the whole 1 BTC.
Sorry if I am really missing something that you are not wanting to do that way.
I believe you are... Wallet #1 would appear to have exactly 1 BTC: I have a wallet with 1 BTC (WALLET #1) and OP wants wallet #3 to receive exactly 1 BTC. ... and would like to transfer the 1 BTC as a whole to a third party (WALLET #3) Is it possible to program a transaction moving 1 BTC from wallet #1 to wallet # 3 and use wallet #2 to pay for the transaction?
If you have access to the private keys from Wallet #1 and #2, you will be able to create and sign a raw transaction that combines the 1 BTC from #1 and the satoshis from #2 and sends exactly 1 BTC to wallet #3 (with the rest being used for the transaction fee). What wallet application(s) are you attempting to send from? Bitcoin Core? Electrum? something else? |
|
|
|
Not sure if I'm phrasing this correctly, but I moved BTC to an external, non-electrum wallet. So I don't know how to check that using these instructions. The coins show pending at receiving wallet, yet showing the higher amount before I increased the transaction fee.
Then your issue is not with Electrum. The coins have been sent from your Electrum wallet and confirmed on the blockchain. The issue is with your receiving wallet. So, what wallet were you sending to? If it is a website based wallet (like an exchange, or gambling site etc), then you will need to contact the support for that site to find out why it hasn't been confirmed as no one else will be able to assist. If it was another software wallet, what wallet was it? |
|
|
|
Did you run that command on Core or Electrum? I just tried the following...  Seems to work fine... |
|
|
|
|
I think the point is... that once you use a BC Vault, you are essentially "locked in" to the BC Vault. As the OP asked and BC Vault confirmed, the backups can only be used by another BC Vault device.
There is (currently) no way to be able to recover your funds without a BC Vault device as BC Vault are not willing to release their recovery software at this time. This means, should your device be lost/damaged/stolen... you have no access to your funds, until you are able to get your hands on another device. In event that "the company stops trading", they have promised to release the recovery software.
Compared with other BIP39 compatible hardware wallets that can be recovered using any other BIP39 compatible hardware or software wallet.
As BC Vault have mentioned, users are free to make their own choices, but they should know all the facts so they can make an informed choice.
|
|
|
|
Thanks. But, this wont work for me. As I mentioned in OP, I dont know my xPriv keys. Though, for BTG, there is a Coinb.in fork, which works like charm only with private keys.
It will work... as Bitcoin Gold Core doesn't work with xpriv keys anyway... you need the individual private keys. If you read the guide, you see that they just use the xprivs (with iancoleman's BIP39 tool) to convert to the necessary private keys. So you can skip down the guide to the bit AFTER the xprivs are converted to private keys... somewhere around here: ... Now we really have everything to start to sign the transaction. Open Electrum, select “View”->”Show console”. Run this command: deserialize(gettransaction("TXID_HERE"))Replace TXID_HERE with the transaction ID (leave the “ “) You will get something like this: https://talkimg.com/images/2023/11/15/z72Qo.pngGo to the section in the bottom with where it says: "address": "our address",Ok, now copy all that thing in the note at the bottom. Now we have the prevout_n, the scriptPubKey, the type and the value of this transaction ID. Now close Electrum. We are almost finished, now open Bitcoin Gold Core wallet. Create a wallet of course, click receive, generate an address in which we will receive our BTG, paste it in a new block note to not get confused. .... From this point on, the guide shows how to create the raw transaction (sending to your desired BTG address), and then how to sign it using the redeem script and each of the private keys that you have... and then finally broadcasting it. Granted, the tutorial isn't the best... but the general idea is correct. |
|
|
|
I'm playing with the idea of incrementally increasing my bet based on my balance and as the balance increases the increment of the bet gets smaller. In the code below I have this working, but I'm thinking that there must be an easier or shorter way to do this with variables. If anyone has any suggestions I'd appreciate it.
About all you can do in this scenario is refactor your code slightly to avoid the script having to process every individual "if" statement by using "elseif's"... once it finds the "matching" elseif, it will drop out of the if and move on: if balance < 0.00025000 then
basebet = 0.00000001
elseif balance < 0.00150000 then
basebet = (balance / 25000)
elseif balance < 0.00300000 then
basebet = (balance / 50000) + 0.00000003
elseif balance < 0.00600000 then
basebet = (balance / 100000) + 0.00000006
elseif balance < 0.01000000 then
basebet = (balance / 200000) + 0.00000009
else
basebet = (balance / 500000) + 0.00000012
end
As for using variables, I don't think that it would be "easier" or "shorter"... as you have several factors in play (ie. the divisor and the increment) which need to be modified for each "step" in your system. Potentially you could set up some arrays to hold these, like: divisor = {25000,50000,100000,200000,50000}
increment = {0,0.00000003,0.00000006,0.00000009,0.00000012}
basebet = (balance / divisor[x]) + increment[x]
But then you're still left with trying to derive the index into those arrays... and then it gets a bit more complicated... like this: step = 1
bal = {0.00025, 0.0015, 0.003, 0.006, 0.01, 999999999}
divider = {1, 25000, 50000, 100000, 200000, 500000}
increment = {0, 0, 0.00000003, 0.00000006, 0.00000009, 0.00000012}
while bal[step] < balance do
step = step + 1
end
if step == 1 then
basebet = 0.00000001
else
basebet = (balance / divider[step]) + increment[step]
end
NOTE: This code appears to work... but I haven't tested it in the bot. |
|
|
|
Indeed this is a very curious case... I've been trying to figure out scenarios where it's possible for the system to use a change address that isn't generated by the wallet... the options I have are: 1. The backup is using a different seed to the original wallet. I believe it is still true that the seed will still be changed when you enable encryption on the wallet... but that it doesn't if you simply change the passphrase. How old was the backup wallet.dat file that you used? When did you create the backup? Did you encrypt the wallet AFTER you created the backups? 2. A "custom" change address was used. For this, "coin control" functionality needs to be switched on in the settings, and a custom change address needs to be entered into the appropriate textbox on the "send" tab. 3. There is some, as yet reported, bug in Bitcoin Core that is causing it to generate and/or use incorrect change addresses. |
|
|
|
Here's a screenshot of my Transactions:  In case anyone is looking... this is the transaction: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/0ed116c76f1267c13e008b863494f29bbd9ee063be47aa78d66c9c490e3c3a0dI understand now receiving wallets are generated based off a seed. Cryptographically, I know that's no chance that seed will generate the same change address twice. So, am I fucked? $35 down the drain not so bad price for this lesson.
No, that's the opposite of how HD wallets work... You should be able to recreate the entire wallet from the seed. Honestly, not sure why it isn't finding the correct change address??!? This could happen if you added encryption to the original wallet AFTER you made the backups (enabling encryption changes the seed) and your backup has the wrong keypool (which I doubt, because otherwise it is likely that it wouldn't even be showing the transaction nor recognise that the original receive address was yours). Was the original address (3P2UsEAdCWAKNzLNqxybcELB78ihGsmP5n) an imported address? Did you ever import a private key to this wallet? |
|
|
|
You can't fix stupid... but you can fix ignorance. Sadly, a lot of people just want to remain ignorant because it is "too hard" or "takes too much time" to educate themselves.   People like this are the same sort of people that put their passwords on post-its stuck to their monitor, or use their birthday as a PIN, or believe the "Microsoft has detected a virus on your computer" pop-ups. I highly doubt these people are using crypto (too hard etc)... and if they are, they've probably lost it already by putting their 12 word seed into "ClaimMyShitcoinFork.com" A theoretical iPhone hack is the least of their problems. |
|
|
|
if you followed the post, youll notice i told people i had to sell my computer, i only found this response because of my email. but thanks for taking the time to not only fail to read my posts, but accuse me of being unfair. your greed is really shining through.
the very reason i even bothered looking through hdds is because im currently out of work and was desperate, but im not selfish.
Don't worry about that guy... if you look through his post history, he has a habit of dropping into "I need help recovering wallet" type posts, saying something really "helpful" like: Do you know your bitcoin address you can look it up on blockchain.com. If you have your private key still you can recover your coins. Just go to electrum.org them copy it in electrum and you should be able to get it. Let me know if you need help and if you get it send me the reward.
And then disappearing... his history is full of examples like that and asking for 1+BTC loans without collateral etc... Sorry to hear that you had to sell your PC and that you were unable to recover the wallet... in all honesty, the recovered .wallet files you found sounded like they were quite badly corrupted. Generally, a multibit .wallet file (even if it was locked with a password) would still show something like this when opened in a text editor:  So, if your .wallet files didn't show the "org.bitcoin.production" (and/or the "org.multibit.walletProtect.2") text, then they were most likely corrupted or not multibit wallet files. |
|
|
|
Fairly sure I've done exactly this for several people (but for Bitcoin Gold) who had fork coins "stuck" in multisig (or Electrum 2FA) wallets. I vaguely recall that you needed to have a synced "core" node to be able to do this... or at least, a node that was synced up to the point where the UTXOs that you were attempting to spend were created. Then it is simply a matter of creating the raw unsigned transaction from those UTXOs... then signing the transaction with at least 2 of the 3 private keys... then broadcasting the transaction. There should be some old posts floating around somewhere with a bit of a guide on how to do it... I'll have a dig around and see if I can find them. EDIT: Here you go... have a read through this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2550529.0It's for BTG, but the same should apply for BCD... again, as noted in the OP in that thread, you will need the "core" node fully synced. |
|
|
|
I believe that you need to go right back to the start as you seem very confused about passwords, mnemonics and wallets... I wrote it down accurately and have tried inputting it in all lower case with spaces in between each of the twelve words, no spaces, capitalizing the first letter in each word, etc. but nothing is working. Where did you get these 12 words from? You say you wrote them down accurately... but you never stated where you originally got these 12 words from!!?! Did someone send you these words? Did you get them from a website? Did you get them from another wallet application? In Bitcoin Core, a "passphrase" is basically just a "password". It can be ANYTHING you want... and MUST be chosen and entered by the user manually to encrypt the wallet. Bitcoin Core, doesn't generate a passphrase for you and it certainly doesn't default to 12 words etc. |
|
|
|
If you think Telegram is bad... you should try just having a mobile phone in Indonesia I spent 2 years working there, and the constant bombardment of scam SMS messages was crazy... almost daily claiming that I had won a car, or a scooter in some fake online giveaway, complete with pictures of said item and official looking documents and pictures of organisers etc... and all I had to do was pay the delivery fee to get it delivered by a C-130 to my location A basic rule of thumb in life... "In spite of their 'Best Price' claims, unsolicited offers are generally not looking out for your interests".  |
|
|
|
Sounds like you had a "pathing" issue... Armory defaults to looking in Bitcoin Core "default" location, which on windows is in the %AppData% (C:\Users\YOURUSERNAME\AppData\Roaming\Bitcoin)... if you've used a "custom" location, this needs to be specified in the Armory settings, or by using an armory.conf and specifying the "satoshi-datadir" value. You can read more here: https://btcarmory.com/docs/pathingIt can be a bit of a struggle getting Armory and Bitcoin Core working nicely on Windows 10, but it is possible... one common "gotcha" is that hidden "zombie" ArmoryDB processes can keep running in the background that can prevent things from working properly, as Armory has TWO components, the GUI component (Armory-QT) and the Database component (ArmoryDB)... The DB is what parses the actual Bitcoin Core block data and extracts the necessary info, so if it has zombie processes running, quite often it is impossible to get things working. The only way to remove the zombie processes is to kill them manually in Task Manager or restart the PC. Also, if you have ArmoryDB building the armory databases from one set of Bitcoin Core blocks... and it "fails" due to incomplete blocks etc, and then you point it at a different set of block data, quite often ArmoryDB will "choke" as the data won't be a 100% match and it can't figure out what to do. In this instance the "Help -> Rebuild and rescan databases" option within the Armory GUI will fix it (but only if you have the pathing all setup correctly first so it can actually find the correct block data!  ) |
|
|
|
Is there a light crypto wallet that
- supports top 5-10 cryptocurrencies, and
- allows API access?
API is a Must. Thanks for any hints!
Multicurrency (with 5-10 "top" currencies) and MUST have API? Then you're probably looking at having to leverage the functionality and custodial wallets of exchanges... I don't think that there are any desktop wallets (or "web" wallets for that matter) that will provide the functionality you're wanting. What exactly are you wanting to do? create a trading platform or something? |
|
|
|
I consider myself a middle of the road crypto user. Not a complete expert but certainly not a complete newbie either.
He wasn't saying crypto user, as in someone who uses crypto currencies... he was saying "cryptographer"... as in an expert in cryptography: Cryptography: the science or study of the techniques of secret writing, especially code and cipher systems, methods, and the like. In any case, pooya87's advice is sound... if you want to secure your paper wallet, then there is no point in reinventing the wheel. BIP38 is a tried and proven method to do so. Just make sure that you're not compromising the security of your wallets by using easily guessable password(s)! |
|
|
|
I disagree that iOS devices is insecure due to this vulnerability since the attacker still need to pass through iOS device and bitcoin wallet encryption.
IMO the real concern is attacker with physical access (such as worker who repair your phone) could jail break your iOS device or/and put malware which act as keylogger or could access bitcoin private key when user open his/her bitcoin wallet.
It's not really that big of a deal anyway... the jailbreak is "non-persistent" and is not an "untethered" jailbreak... so simply rebooting your device or switching it off and then on again removes the jailbreak and therefore any "non-signed" software (ie. malware) would cease to function... and it needs to be connected to another device to jailbreak it. Arstechnica have an interview with the hacker that published the exploit here: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/developer-of-checkm8-explains-why-idevice-jailbreak-exploit-is-a-game-changer/DG: Somebody could use Checkm8 to install a keylogger on a fully up-to-date iOS device, but the second that they rebooted the phone, that keylogger would be gone, right?
A: Correct. Or it wouldn't work. They left the keylogger there, but iOS would just say: "This app is not authorized to run on this phone, so I'm not going to run it."
In addition, with the "newer" devices that are able to be exploited (I believe devices >= iPhone 6) that have the "Secure Enclave", you still need the device PIN etc to be able to access any private data: DG: In a scenario where either police or a thief obtains a vulnerable phone but doesn't have an unlock PIN, are they going to be helped in any way by this exploit? Does this exploit allow them to access parts of this phone or do things with this phone that they couldn't otherwise do?
A: The answer is "It depends." Before Apple introduced the Secure Enclave and Touch ID in 2013, you didn't have advanced security protections. So, for example, the [San Bernardino gun man's] phone that was famously unlocked [by the FBI]—the iPhone 5c— that didn't have Secure Enclave. So in that case, this vulnerability would allow you to very quickly get the PIN and get access to all the data. But for pretty much all current phones, from iPhone 6 to iPhone 8, there is a Secure Enclave that protects your data if you don't have the PIN.
My exploit does not affect the Secure Enclave at all. It only allows you to get code execution on the device. It doesn't help you boot towards the PIN because that is protected by a separate system. But for older devices, which have been deprecated for a while now, for those devices like the iPhone 5, there is not a separate system, so in that case you could be able to [access data] quickly [without an unlock PIN].
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
