Is it a specific requirement to "import" the private key into Jaxx? As mentioned with an xpub and a private key, the entire chain in that "account" could be compromised.

Would you not be better off simply sending those funds to Jaxx using the standard protocol?

Also, have you tried simply creating an unsigned transaction on the Electrum watching only wallet that includes the funds from the change address and then tried importing that unsigned transaction into the offline Electrum? This might trigger the offline wallet into "generating" the change address that you require.

Good to hear you had a positive outcome. I often wonder why people choose such long passwords? Is it because you get a feeling of increased security?

As it would appear that it really is a case of diminishing returns in terms of "security" vs. increased risk to "safety" after you exceed 20 or so characters. The chances of mis-typing something in a 115 character password is "quite high" compared to a shorter and arguably just as "brute-force proof" password

That seems "OK"... I'm still not sold on the use of invisible ink, but that's just my personal preference and as long as you're satisfied with it's longevity and/or you check it regularly, then I don't see any really obvious flaws.

One more thing I would like to add would be to ensure that you stay somewhat up to date with happenings in the Ledgersphere... ie. firmware updates etc. There have been one or two users in recent history who have had issues trying to update very old firmwares. Hopefully this won't be repeated going forward and Ledger have put plans into place to prevent a reoccurrence, but they cannot foresee all eventualities!

Because blockchain.com allows spending of unconfirmed "change"... You haven't really done anything wrong per se... it's just an unfortunate set of circumstances that have resulted in both your transactions getting held up.

Using a webwallet makes it harder for you to be able to do anything about it... because, to my knowledge, blockchain.com wallet doesn't allow you to use RBF... and you can't guarantee that a CPFP transaction would work either unless you shifted your entire remaining balance to be sure you were spending the change UTXO.

Apparently your first transaction has already been added to the ViaBTC queue, so it's really just a matter of waiting for them to find a block or two at this point and it should get a confirmation. Then you can try and add the 2nd to the queue.

As far as I'm aware, there isn't a way to increase the gap limit on the android version as there is no console


Another way that I can think of to get your private key would require that you use the seed and something like the Electrum Seed Tester: https://github.com/FarCanary/ElectrumSeedTester

You just need the "standalone" .html file. Using that you could find the required change address and matching private key. The trick is how to do that in an "offline" manner. If you had an OTG cable for your offline smartphone, you could transfer it via a USB stick.

Or, alternatively, you could setup an offline PC and install the desktop version of Electrum, restore from your Electrum seed and then you'll be able to increase the gap limit and/or manually generate change addresses until you find the one you want.

Failing that, another (more expensive) option would be to go into the Electrum address list (receive tab, tap the address shown), then tap the "receive" button to change the filter to show "change" addresses, then select the last one in the list and select "use". Then send some coins to that address. It might force the wallet to generate more addresses. NOTE: I can't test this method as there isn't a TestNet version of the Android wallet available, so I can't guarantee that it will actually work.

I honestly can't see anything really obviously wrong with those logs?!?

I would suggest that you attempt to use the "Rebuild and Rescan Databases" option from the help menu and see if that fixes it. Other than that, possibly running ArmoryDB manually from the command line (without ArmoryQT running) to see if it is behaving correctly.


Note that the "organising blockchain" can take quite a while to finish on first sync... how long did you leave it running?

Theoretically, none. Remember, this is only to prevent dust from being created, it doesn't stop you from spending dust! The difficulty comes in that the fee to use the input could be so big as to consume the entire dust UTXO and/or you need enough other coins in the wallet to be able to send it out without creating a new dust output.

You've ordered the TXIDs around the wrong way...

The first transaction is this one: 56bdf3da128c81602cafb07ed100a55648ab2b67399ee10509e5645bb073e62e
The second transaction is this one: d8063ef9e0affce8233fb914c14961d909a89790efe65c00c40f6bddd76c9e52

Both are unconfirmed. The reason you got the "transaction input unconfirmed" message is that the 2nd transaction (d8063...) is spending the (unconfirmed) UTXO from the 1st transaction. To be able to use the accelerator, you would need to submit the first transaction (56bdf...) and get that confirmed and then you would be able to submit the 2nd transaction.

The "submissions beyond limit" message simply means that it has already queued 100 transactions for that hour... given the state of the network with the big "pump and dump" that occurred the last 24 hours, the accelerator has been getting slammed... if you don't submit in the first half second of a new hour... you're going to get that error message

I have no issues with the format... like I said, it was the message that is broken. This doesn't look "broken" to you?

It's quite obvious that it originally said something like:

But for some reason, now has "I confirm that I am the owner of this address username - punky. examplens from Bitcointalk, u=1695037  26.june 2019" typed into the middle of it... to make matters worse, this version also has the other username "examplens" in there as well.

I'm just wondering why someone would choose to copy/paste such a broken message and edit it... rather than simply typing their own or using one of the many "correct" examples of signed messages from this thread? Especially when that message was from over a week ago, and there have been plenty of other posts staking addresses since.

They say they will add 100 transactions per hour to their "queue"... but they haven't specified how many from that queue they'll actually add to any block they mine, and they don't necessarily find a block every hour. So, it's quite possible the accelerated queue has become quite long.

Therefore it could take them several blocks before they have clear that queue.

I'm not sure if they only include 100 "accelerated" transactions per block... or if they'll build a block using as many "accelerated" transactions as they can fit in a block, but given how hard this service is getting slammed, you may actually need to wait for ViaBTC to mine several blocks.

Given that they haven't found a block for around 7 hours... that's likely 700 transactions that have been added to the list. So, it's possible that their list of accepted transactions is actually growing if they don't find a block in every 1 hour period! 

The error message tells you... you have dust outputs. If you setup the transaction and then click the "Preview" button, it'll show you the inputs/outputs being used. In the outputs section you will likely see one or more outputs that has a value below 0.00000546 BTC.

Transactions with tiny outputs are effectively banned from the network to prevent "spam" attacks. You'll need to adjust your transaction (either the amount being sent or the fee being used) to try and prevent the tiny dust output from being generated before the network will accept your transaction.

https://electrum.org/ is working fine for me, just using Chrome and standard internet connection (no VPN etc)... granted I haven't tried to access it the last couple of days, so can't comment on any outage... but it looks like it is running fine.

You can't "convert" your existing Electrum wallet from SegWit to Legacy, you would need to create a completely new wallet (File -> New\Restore -> Standard Wallet -> Create New Seed) and then specify the "Legacy" option when asked what seed type you want to use:


You would then need to send all funds from other wallets (old SegWit Electrum wallet, if it contains any funds... and your Coinmama wallet etc) to an address from your new Legacy wallet (address should start with a "1"). However, given the current price pump of BTC, and the related massive spike in unconfirmed transactions and fees, I would recommend NOT trying to transfer your $11 until it all settles down. A "low fee" transaction is going to get stuck for hours, if not days.

Which specific two apps are you using?

And see here for proof that poems are a bad idea: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ptuf3/brain_wallet_disaster

Line from an obscure poem in Afrikaans and he got robbed!!?! 

As for storing the 24 word seed mnemonic backup... there are two components to consider, being that you need to keep it "safe" and "secure". "Secure" in that you need to prevent it being stolen/accessed by a 3rd party who could then steal your coins... and "safe", in that you need to prevent accidental "loss" of the seed (destroyed by fire, water damage, accidentally throwing it out, memory loss if memorised etc.)... which could potentially mean loss of the coins if something happens to the device as well.


Storing the actually hardware device itself is somewhat less of a problem... as someone would need to know your PIN to be able to use it and they only get 3 attempts at "bruteforcing" it before the device wipes itself. If it does get stolen/lost/damaged, you can always recover from the seed mnemonic backup, so IMO... the seed mnemonic backup is the critical component.

Can you please stop recommending this as a method to speed up transactions... rebroadcasting does absolutely nothing unless the transaction has been dropped from the mempool... and even then, rebroadcasting does not push your transaction to the front of the queue or prioritise it anyway. The queue is generally determined by the fee used. If your fee is low and your transaction is at the end of the queue, it is still going to have a low fee and be stuck at the end of the queue if you attempt to rebroadcast.

In any case, it is highly unlikely that the first node you rebroadcast it to will even re-relay it as they will note that it already exists, so there is no need for it to be re-propagated to the network.

If the unconfirmed transaction is still showing on blockexplorers, then it is most probably still in the mempool of the various miners... and rebroadcasting will achieve nothing.

The same as always... You got caught out by a massive spike in price followed by a massive spike in Bitcoin transactions... followed by a massive spike in fees as everyone man and his brother attempts to cash in on the pump:


Your transaction is still ~18 blocks from the top of the pile... and that is assuming that ZERO more transactions are added. I'd predict your waiting time is going to be several more hours at a minimum.

For the record, bitcoinfees.earn.com is a terrible predictor... you're better off using:
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,24h
or
https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx

But you should note that unless you put in the "next block" value for the fee, it's quite possible you can get caught out by a massive spike while you're waiting for your "within an hour" fee transaction to confirm Also, using RBF is a great idea, as you can bump your fee as required if you need faster confirmations when this sort of thing happens.

Is there a "broken" signed message generator/wallet out there somewhere? This is the 2nd message recently which has the same weird "message" format...

Or are users simply attempting to copy/paste the format from a previous message? It just seems weird to choose such a broken message tho...

You could try google... "what is bitcoin cold storage?". The very first result links to the Bitcoin Wiki article about it and the links at the bottom of that page should help out.

For cold storage? You don't have to do anything very specific in Electrum. The important part is having the standalone, completely offline computer. Once you have setup and configured the computer, it absolutely must never be connected to any network... ever.

The details of Electrum Cold Storage setup can be found here: http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/coldstorage.html

Basically, create a wallet on the offline computer, then export the master public key which you then use to create the "watching only" wallet on your online device (be it a phone or computer).


Using QR codes is one method. This can be implemented using either webcams or digital cameras.

Another method is using a USB stick to create an unsigned transaction on your online device in the watching-only wallet, transfer to offline device, check that the details match, sign it... then transfer the signed transaction back to the online device for broadcasting to the network.

This generalised workflow (create unsigned trans using "online" wallet -> transfer to "offline" -> sign trans -> transfer signed trans to "online" -> broadcast to network) is essentially identical to the workflow that a hardware wallet uses, but without requiring the manual transfer of unsigned and signed transactions files using QRCode/USB sticks etc.