However I'm not sure If I want to update my firmware because I can't remember where my recovery phrase is. And the software says that I should have it within reach, as a precaution.
Regardless of what you do with updating the firmware... if you can't remember where your recovery phrase is, or you have lost it, then I would recommend that you get your assets moved to a new wallet as soon as practicable. Then wipe the device, generate a new recovery phrase and store it safely, then move the coins to the new wallet on the device. That 24 word recovery phrase IS your wallet, without that, your coins are going to be lost should anything happen to your device! |
|
|
|
Where can i find tools for this to check for error?
If your friend knows one of their very first Bitcoin addresses generated by the Trezor... they can use the "seedrecovery.py" script that comes as part of the "btcrecover" package. NOTE: if your friend's Trezor was using "3"-type addresses (aka P2SH-P2WPKH), they will need to use a forked version of that package that is available here: https://github.com/madacol/btcrecover/tree/p2wpkh-p2sh and use the commandline options to specify the correct --bip32-path of: m/49'/0'/0' |
|
|
|
Thanks for the update... It should also be pointed out that these mods are likely to only work properly for dumping the wallet... I would advise that users do not attempt to use any of the other wallet "modification" features as it will most likely corrupt the wallet. Simply reading/dumping the wallet should be fine. But as always... work on a copy of your wallet.dat!  |
|
|
|
The current state of the altcoin market is... poor  But it's nice to see that my XRP is hanging in there as at least a "break even" value  Still... at least the thread title lived up to it's name... "Roller Coaster" is the best way to describe this!  |
|
|
|
So, if I use an address X, and then I use address Y from the same seed, it will show up as part of one wallet.
Did I misunderstand something on how they work or what did you exactly mean?
That's not how it works... it can't know that address X and address Y are from same seed. What Walletexplorer is essentially doing is looking for situations where UTXOs from different addresses (technically public keys) are being spent in the same transaction. For instance... this recent transaction: ce09079b0588205ceb5c33e3378677d8a6f4eea826b7ec44a29f84c6c1e42c16 We can see the UTXOs came from the following (unique) addresses: 1AxkKhTPHULorCp7weHNCzNsnu7daiQpS9 1HxQg5f5hCi1R6QLme5AnhxxJp9dekEgXN 17nt1tAH2HZYkpzeu89WPQax1Z14itSZEM 1DhrGMNaAPXibS3w37xd7brmBche8fpTmY 1P1P9NTiN69nZas2VtNGcC1SXuABswy4ZN 12PZiFyf4Fzy981M9tiu6Hirzdd6tFYK9t 1GyejomGpaTndNiXdjstTjjMvvVoVonKGd It is therefore reasonable to assume that ALL of those addresses came from the same wallet (but not necessarily the same "seed", it's quite possible they were just random private keys in the same wallet). Walletexplorer is basically just looking at relationships like this. They can't just start with say 1AxkKhTPHULorCp7weHNCzNsnu7daiQpS9 and then claim that 1GyejomGpaTndNiXdjstTjjMvvVoVonKGd comes from the same seed... unless you actually know the seed or master private/public key, you can't derive the other public keys. |
|
|
|
Where did you get this "Electrum.lnk" I can't find this file on my Electrum wallet files in program files folder or in %appdata%
If you use the Windows installer, it creates .lnk files in the "Start Menu". For instance, on Windows 10, I have "Electrum.lnk", "Electrum Testnet.lnk" and "uninstall.lnk" in the following directory: C:\Users\YOURUSERNAME\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Electrum If you use Standalone or Portable version, these shortcuts are not created. As for the OP's original question: Is bitdefender crazy and should i just restore the file ? Bitdefender is "crazy" It's most likely just a false positive... It's a known issue due to the Electrum devs using PyInstaller... If you have a look on the electrum.org download page... and read the "Notes for Windows users": Electrum binaries are often flagged by various anti-virus software. There is nothing we can do about it, so please stop reporting that to us. Anti-virus software uses heuristics in order to determine if a program is malware, and that often results in false positives. If you trust the developers of the project, you can verify the GPG signature of Electrum binaries, and safely ignore any anti-virus warnings. If you do not trust the developers of the project, you should build the binaries yourself, or run the software from source. Finally, if you are really concerned about malware, you should not use an operating system that relies on anti-virus software.
If you are 100% sure you downloaded from electrum.org and you have verified the digital signature, then it should be fine to add an exception to your antivirus to allow it to run. |
|
|
|
thanks all sorted
What was the actual issue in the end? Was it a derivation path issue?  It might be helpful to others if you explained what you had to do to solve your problem. |
|
|
|
I never know this could actually worked ,I tested it last night and viola it works but I'm kinda worried now about ,is this not a vulnerable way to hack others wallet? ? No... Guessing one word out of 12 is fine... Assuming you know an address that is fairly close to the beginning of the derivation path... AND the words you have are in the correct order. Anything additional to that and the time required to generate and check combinations starts to increase at an exponential rate. Even if you know the words are in correct order: Time to find One word - measured in seconds Time to find Two words - measured in minutes/hours Time to find Three words - measured in days Time to find Four words - measured in months Time to find Five words - measured in years Etc etc If you don't know the order is correct... These times become orders of magnitude greater. To brute force 12 words? Measured in lifetimes! |
|
|
|
but to say truth i am pretty sure admins or workers from electrum wallet behind .. because i got a window to download wallet directly in wallet ! . No... It wasn't the "admins or workers". Unfortunately there was a "bug" in the Electrum code that meant that a "bad" server could return any message it liked to a client and include links. Scammers found the bug and then exploited it to send phishing messages advertising the fake versions from fake github sites  This bug was then patched to prevent the phishing messages from being displayed. Refer: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/4968funds are gone for sure ...
Unfortunately, yes... that much is certain  |
|
|
|
When i first opened the wallet I swear i saw a button under advanced settings that said switch mode to cold wallet or something.. but now I can't find it... I tried reinstalling, and everthing, still no success... anyone know if this is a bug with Bither or something I do wrong??
It's not under "Advanced Settings"... it was just under the standard settings when you click the little "gear" icon. Perhaps try and delete the app data and then restart it and see if it gives you the option again.  And, I don't think you need to be offline to see the option... as it shows up fine on mine when connected to 4G. As per the popup, it just needs to be offline to be able to use it as "Bither Cold":  |
|
|
|
so I do not have her private key to create the signed message, and the The wallet I sent was not mine because I made a withdrawal from another site, now what?
Unfortunately, without the private key you cannot sign a message. You will need to contact the support for freebitcoin and advise them of the problem. Or perhaps you can try and contact the site where you made the withdrawal from and see if they are able to assist by confirming, on your behalf, that the deposit came from your account there. No one here can help you. |
|
|
|
BTC Address (must be SegWit): 1fYom5wBHdbxs4V4nw3Xekz4jkJshS2r2
Just a bit of free advice, especially if you want an exception to be made... You might want to fix that part of your application |
|
|
|
|
What I've seen so far, tells me that my initial thoughts were somewhat correct... in that there are quite varied views on Trust, what it means (Positive vs. Negative), how it should be used and how it currently is being used.
Unfortunately, it looks like the pretty decent debate that we were having is starting to degenerate into off-topic/name calling etc. That being the case, I think I'll just stop it here before the thread gets any worse that it already is.
Thanks for all the responses, I appreciate it... it has certainly given me some food for thought.
|
|
|
|
The only way to satisfy your curiosity is to ask someone who has that information via PM.
Given the Meta/Reputation drama revolving around some PM's being made public in recent times... You might find a few people quite reluctant to put anything in a PM |
|
|
|
And by my understanding a "self-made" Legendary are the ones who only ranked up to the that position after the merit system was introduced No... the "self-made" moniker is used by some folk who have earned 1000 merit after the airdrop happened. It's basically a claim that even without the airdropped merit, they would still be a Legendary today... as opposed to some of the Legendary accounts which ranked up prior to merit... and now have like 1001 merit |
|
|
|
Anybody have any idea what this could be? Quite possibly a gambling site (maybe an exchange?) that offers "instant" withdrawal... if you follow all the way back to the "start" you'll find a transfer from what is most likely cold storage into a bunch of 15 BTC outputs, like this: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/093abc15e60f811f147763f86c2e773d5037a0b7ac764451ec5536eed4029a5cThen each of those 15 BTC outputs is slowly 'ground down' as payments are sent out. This may be a dumb question but why not do it in one big transaction to save on fees? While it is true that they may save on fees, if a service offers "instant" withdrawal and as soon as a user clicks "withdraw", that transaction is not showing... users get VERY anxious. I've also seen some services that just simply didn't have the technical knowledge of how to implement batched withdrawals. |
|
|
|
We tried that already, but it didn't work. I assume that as the backup was made before any coins were transfered, then we just restored from the backup with no coins. Just as if you were working on your computer and hadn't saved your progress and then tried to reach it afterwards.
That is not how it works. It doesn't matter when the backup was made. They will regenerate the same wallet every time you restore from the seed mnemonic. That is the entire point of "HD" wallets and 12/24 word seed mnemonics. If you attempted to restore the wallet, and it did not show your original wallet, then the 12 word recovery phrase, while valid, is not the "correct" backup phrase. Somehow you have the 12 word seed mnemonic for a different wallet. |
|
|
|
The main question is: are there any ways to choose the last word? Can be any scripts, programs, brootforces and so on. And another question: how can I most easily restore myself (that is, pick up the word), for example in iancoleman insert the last word and check the address, how to try to automate? Yes. Trust wallet appears to use BIP39 compatible 12 word seed mnemonics, and also appears to be using standard BIP44 derivation path (m/44'/60'/0'/) for determining your ETH address. This means that you can use the "seedrecovery" script that comes as part of the "btcrecover" package to bruteforce the correct word... It will require you to download and install Python and a couple of libraries... but isn't super complicated if you follow the installation instructions carefully. The main requirement is that you know what the ETH address used was... if you know the ETH address, the script will find the missing word within seconds. I've just downloaded Trust Wallet, created a test wallet and got the 12 word seed. I then tested running seedrecovery using the "Ethereum Standard BIP39/BIP44" option, along with the ETH address from the wallet and only the first 11 words... and it found the missing word in a matter of seconds. So, I would say that chances are very good that it'll work for you... assuming you have the ETH address. Feel free to ask here or via PM if you need help setting up btcrecover/seedrecovery. |
|
|
|
|
Just FYI, uninstalling Electrum won't remove the wallet files... it's a feature to prevent loss of wallets due accidentally uninstalling etc.
You can find the wallet files in your "%AppData%\Electrum" directory... quick shortcut on Windows is:
- Press "Win+R"
- In the textbox, type: %AppData%
- Press enter
- You should see a folder named "Electrum" and in that will be a "wallets" folder, containing the wallet file(s)
Even if you attempt to install Electrum to your external drive, that will only place the application files on the drive. Windows will most likely still attempt to use this AppData folder for Electrum's data storage.
If you want the application AND all the wallet data to be on the external drive, you need to download and use the portable .exe version of Electrum... The portable .exe version creates a data directory in the same location as the .exe and stores the wallet files there.
The "installer" and "standalone" versions use the Windows %AppData% folder structure for storage by default.
|
|
|
|
I think people should leave negative trust only to users who scammed or when they strongly believe that person would scam if given the chance.
The inclusion of "strongly believe" gives enough room in my opinion. We should not leave negative trust if we don't honestly believe a person has scammed or will scam.
So I don't think the description should be changed to "You distrust this person" or similar.
So should the "Positive Trust" description be changed then and the "You trust this person" part be removed? I find it somewhat confusing that on the one hand, people are saying "Negative Trust ratings should only be used for scammers"... yet seem happy enough for the positive trust description to include a very generic " You trust this person or had a successful trade" description. So, Positive Trust for someone you simply consider trustworthy = OK... but Negative Trust for someone you consider untrustworthy = not OK? I guess, the point I'm trying to make is that the descriptions for positive and negative trust are not consistent... hence, I am not surprised at the lack of consistency in how they are interpreted and applied. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
