I've found that if you click on this notification:



It will pop-up a window that has the update notification:



You can click on the blue link and it will take you automatically to the download page on electrum.org


You can test this quite easily by downloading an older "portable" version... say 3.3.6 from here: https://download.electrum.org/3.3.6/
Run it, and click "yes" when asked if you want to be notified of new versions. You should see the update notification at the bottom of the Electrum window as shown above and should be able to click through from there.

I have the perfect solution... I would implore all the good folks to try it:

Should not matter if the wallet was backed up or not. As long as you've sent to a valid address, that is all that the network cares about.

You should note, that from memory... the bitcoin.com wallet likes to promote Bitcoin Cash... did you accidentally deposit to a BCH address instead of a BTC address? Check the address on a BCH explorer like blockchair.com and see if it is showing your deposit.

Also, where did you deposit from that it is showing as pending?

Fake notifications are not likely to happen again. This particular feature was actually added AFTER the server message vulnerability was patched... it also uses digitally signed messages (with a hardcoded server URL) so that only the official server is able to notify of an update: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/RELEASE-NOTES#L111-L112

Advising people to switch this off may actually result in them missing notifications of new versions that fix critical vulnerabilities... which is kind of why this feature was added in the first place!

Did you try following the instructions on the Ledger Support page that was linked to by bob123?

It's fairly easy to follow and should be able to do the first two steps without creating any "mess"

I understand why people are upset about all this. Due to the "updates", Ledger have managed to make the Nano S functionally worse than when people like myself purchased it.

Sure, it's not that difficult to uninstall/reinstall the coin apps as required, but the point is that wasn't necessary... and now it is because they broke it. To then turn around and say "spend $$$ on our new model" is not an answer. That looks like "forced obsolescence" and trying to force your customers to upgrade and spend extra $$$ on something they may not need nor want.

Thankfully, I'm not really affected as I don't require more than BTC and ETH on a day to day basis. However, hopefully, Ledger will get around to rectifying this issue "properly", but I wouldn't be holding my breath to be honest.

Possibly a "stuck" aka ghost process?

If you haven't already trying checking Windows Task Manager to see if there is a Ledger process still running in the background and/or try rebooting. Then try re-installing Ledger Live using the installer from: https://shop.ledger.com/pages/ledger-live

No.

It shows as a single transaction, with a single TXID, with a single transaction fee, with multiple outputs... Something a bit like this: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/2dd1a3f30921eff395d06480727b94dac6d7618084a8272d6a060af110d90789

Payments sent to 2 different addresses, with the "change" being returned to the original address.

It sounds like you're trying to setup some sort of online "custodial" type wallet where your users are able to send one another funds within the confines of your system. In this instance, you may be better off simply running like a "normal" custodial setup, controlling the wallets/addresses in the backend and using a database to track payments into, within and out of your system, rather than trying to have multiple users within essentially the same wallet.

You'd be able to generate receive addresses as required and simply assign a generated "deposit" address to a specific user in the database... If UserAAddress receives funds, then UserABalance = UserABalance + amount. If User A then wants to send User B funds, you simply alter the appropriate values in the database (off-chain). So UserABalance = UserABalance - amount... UserBBalance = UserBBalance + amount etc.

Should a user wish to withdraw funds from the service or send to an external address, you can then simply create a transaction from your master wallet, and it doesn't really matter what address the funds come from... you then simply debit the appropriate amount from the user balance... UserABalance = UserABalance - amount.

Obviously, this is a dramatic simplification of the setup, and you'd need to consider ways to minimise risk to the funds in your system wallet should your system security be compromised... most services tend to use a system of hot wallets and cold storage to achieve this.

Yeah... I suspect you might be confused by the 4.95% == 0.0495...

In this formula, you need to use a "decimal percentage"... This is basically the percentage you are using / 100. All the values should end up between 0 and 1.

So, if you are using a percentage of 1%, the decimal value is (1 / 100) => 0.01

0.495% => 0.495 / 100 => 0.00495
4.95% => 4.95 / 100 => 0.0495
10% => 10 / 100 => 0.1
56.7% => 56.7 / 100 => 0.567
100% => 100 / 100 => 1

Because the start percentage is for "wins" and we're after "losses"... we then use (1-p) to get the loss percentage... so the formula, for 4.95% should look something like:

=abs(ln(4166576)/ln(1-0.0495))

What site are you using that is given you these 1700-1900 loss streaks?

I don't believe this is actually possible. As already stated, Electrum will only create multisigs using xpubs/xprvs or seeds.

You'd need to download and sync the BCD "QT" wallet... You can then either create the multisig address inside the QT wallet by using the private keys that you have (will possibly need to rescan the blockchain so the appropriate UTXOs are found) or you can simply create the transactions manually to send the coins.

I've had to do this for people previously who were trying to get fork coins out of "Electrum" for BTG, BCH and BCD etc.

What wallet are you receiving the btc to? Is it an SPV wallet like Electrum?

If so, it's possible that someone might have generated a lot of addresses via the API and the API is now generating addresses out past the gap limit of your wallet... so your wallet is not registering the new transactions as it is not looking for them.

Have you also tried using the BIP39 mnemonic tool to manually check if the addresses being generated by the API match ones being generated from your xpub? You don't need to input your mnemonic or xprv... you can paste your xpub into the "BIP32 root key" box at the top of the page, click the "BIP32" tab... and set the custom derivation path to simply "m" (or it might be "m/0" depending on which xpub you're actually using)... you can then generate as many addresses as you need to check that the API is actually generating addresses based on your xpub.

When you say "missing"... were they actually sent from your wallet or can you just no longer see the correct balance?

If you see outgoing transaction(s) sending the coins to a different wallet, then they've likely been stolen and your chances of recover are zero.
If you just don't see the correct balance, but there are no outgoing transactions, then it might just be a syncing/display issue.

As others have suggested, check your known addresses on a block explorer first. If the coins are still on your known addresses, then it's like just a syncing issue. If the coins have been moved, then it's more likely that your wallet was compromised and your coins have been stolen.

For starters, you could try answering some of the questions that people are asking rather than waving your arms in the air and saying "woe is me, my coins are stuck in Electrum".

We understand that you are currently struggling with Electrum. However, your coins are not stuck. There are multiple ways for you to be able to spend your coins. You seem to be a bit confused with regards to "bech32" (aka "bc1") addresses being invalid and that you won't be able to send these coins anywhere.

That simply is not correct. While some other wallets/websites will flag a "bc1" address as "invalid" and refuse to send to it... it does not stop you from sending from a "bc1" address to any other address.

Simply:
"Bad" wallet/website --> "bc1" address = NO
Good wallet/website --> "bc1" address = YES
"bc1" address --> ANY wallet/website = YES!

Now, if you absolutely must be able to receive funds from a "bad" wallet/website that refuses to send to a "bc1" address... you have two options:

1. Create a new "Legacy" wallet that uses "1" addressees
2. Create a new "Nested SegWit" wallet that uses "3" addresses

Both of these address types are fully "backwards" compatible and should be recognised as "valid" by every wallet/website that uses Bitcoin. You can then simply send all the funds from your "bc1" wallet to you new Legacy or Nested SegWit wallet.


Now, to get back to you "other" problem:
Let's try and fix this issue... you say you are attempting to send the Bitcoins out, but you are unable to do so. There can be multiple reasons that this is occurring, so we'll need to do some troubleshooting to figure out the root cause.

When you try to send the coins, can you please explain, step by step, what you're doing on the "Send" tab in Electrum, describing at what point you get an error and what the exact error message is... and if you could take a screenshot of the error message being generated, that would be incredibly helpful.

If you'd rather not post the screenshots publicly for privacy reasons and/or you're not able to blur/obfuscate bitcoin addresses/amounts in a picture editor etc, you can feel free to PM me and I'll be happy to try and assist.

I thought that was made fairly clear by the first reply in this thread... and then the subsequent follow up from achow

Note that they are specifically talking about the AES-256 encryption used by Electrum... other encryptions may be susceptible to "known plaintext attacks".

Can finally confirm... you need to get it to 300 good reports... I had a bunch of "unhandled" that I had hoped would push me up, but eventually found a few "gems" to report. Once I hit that 300 "good" then the "view report history" function was available.

Are those numbers correct?

I just tried putting them into the spreadsheet...

4166576 rolls, chance @ 4.95% (0.0495 == 4.95% chance)... and I get a max expected streak of ~300...

Everytime I see this... it reminds me of some classic kiwi TV history... https://youtu.be/YaIZF8uUTtk?t=25

To be fair, he was a boxer... and probably had some brain damage as a result of getting hit in the head.  

The best explanation including a mathematical formula I have found is this one:


If you want a formula for Excel or Google Sheets it would be:
"n" = number of rolls
"p" = needs to be expressed as percentage value between 0-1, so (percentage / 100). ie. 60% = 0.60, 5% = 0.05

You can see it in action here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T7k5KVUwB606rfyrCrfZNTs8xyVyF7C-0PLlIPzaU8o

Having thought about this a little more, I would guess that what is happening is because your Ledger is not able to derive the "change" address itself from it's own Bitcoin master key and derivation path (it has no idea of the other co-signer keys so cannot replicate the combined multisig wallet addresses), it thinks that you're creating a change address on a non-standard derivation path.


It's true they don't in their Ledger Live software... but you can create MultiSig sig wallets in Electrum in conjunction with Hardware Wallets.


I think you missed the part where the OP stated he had already created a MultiSig wallet... and was simply getting an unusual message when attempting to sign a transaction.