So you sent Bitcoin to localbitcoins... and are meant to be receiving Bitcoin Cash in exchange? As the others have noted, it isn't very clear what you were actually attempting to do with this transfer...

So, can you explain exactly what were you attempting to trade here? BTC -> BCH? Or BTC -> $$$? or ....

Does the change_gap_limit() command also affect "change" addresses?

I don't think it does... and if not, then I guess it's possible that somehow OP had been using a change address past the change address gap limit as a receive address... but I wouldn't consider that likely either. I would think the multiple wallet scenario to be more likely.

Indeed a very puzzling situation... and definitely one the OP should solve ASAP to avoid any coin loss with coins that appear to be held on addresses that are not backed up by their seed!

No... you don't have to follow this format. There is no "rule" regarding the format of scam accusations... there is simply a suggested format to follow. If this format is followed correctly, it results in all the pertinent information being laid out in a structured manner which helps others understand what the accusation is about.

So, whilst it is preferred, this format certainly isn't required.

As someone who appears to have a fondness for literal meanings and semantics, I'm sure you appreciate the difference.

Very little point claiming anything other than the BCH at this point... the rest aren't really worth anything unless you had "a lot" of BTC (10+) at the time of the forks

For reference, BTG is currently at $12... Bitcoin SV is $65...

Also, there is no reason for you to use a different device to claim each fork... ie. BCH using laptop and BTG using android phone... just do it all on the laptop.


For the record, Ledger don't support Bitcoin SV, you'll need to find a Bitcoin SV wallet to store them: https://support.ledger.com/hc/en-us/articles/360012270054-Safely-claim-Bitcoin-Cash-SV-BSV-

As far as I'm aware, there was a special version of Electron Cash created that enabled one to claim Bitcoin SV... instructions with pretty pictures here: https://github.com/markblundeberg/coinsplitter/blob/master/doc/coinsplitter_user_guide.md

That's just the setting options for the fee range it will "default" to when you actually create a transaction (ie. the position of the "top" slider)... if you look on the the "send transaction" screen, you get a LOT more options!

You can slide the top slider between the four "Low-Prio, Economic, Normal and Priority", and each of those has 6-8 fee options...

Unfortunately, it still seems to calculate the available options based on current fee rates... so you can end up with the "lowest" fee being higher than 1 sat/byte... I just took this screenshot now, and the lowest is 3 sats/byte

Because your 24 words is NOT a private key... your 24 words is a "seed mnemonic" that is used to store a "seed" in a more human-readable format (ie. words) that helps to prevent transcription errors when writing them down or inputting them during recovery.

This "seed", is the starting point for creating an infinite number of private keys in a "Hierarchical Deterministic" (aka "HD") wallet like the Ledger...

you can read about deterministic wallets here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Deterministic_wallet
and here: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hd-wallet-hierarchical-deterministic-wallet.asp

It's possible he was using a BIP39 seed and just selected the "default" option of "native segwit" (aka bech32 aka "bc1") addresses when he tried to recover using the latest Electrum, as that is what the wallet creation wizard defaults to after you end your seed.


Do the addresses on the new PC with the latest Electrum start with "bc1"?

Did you create the seed with Electrum? Or is it an imported BIP39 seed? If it is BIP39, then for future reference, to recover your old wallet on the new PC with the new Electrum with your old seed... you need to ensure that you select the top option that says "legacy (p2pkh)" after you have entered your seed:



However if it was an Electrum seed, then I'd agree that is VERY strange that your seed is generated addresses that don't match... I'd suggest looking at the wallet on the Tails machine and using "Wallet -> Seed" option to actually double check that you have backed up the correct seed!

As everyone else has explained... Seed Mnemonic (ie. 24 words) + Passphrase = Used to generate actual seed that your wallets are built off of.

For Trezor, the Seed mnemonics adhere to a set standard (BIP39) which includes a limited set of words and a checksum to determine if the mnemonic is "valid". Given that you are NOT getting any seed mnemonic errors, then the issue is likely with the "passphrase" that you are attempting to use.

As described here: https://wiki.trezor.io/Passphrase

Unfortunately, there is not "standard" for a user-specified passphrase, and can be literally any combination of letters, numbers and symbols... up to the Trezor limit of 50 characters.

And the warning on that same page would apply:

There is no way to recover a "lost" passphrase... perhaps try "variations" of what you believe your passphrase was and test typos/spelling mistakes etc?


Do you have a 25th word writtent down on your recovery card? Trezor ONE seeds are generally only 24 words... So, If you don't recognise that "25th word" as the passphrase that you think you were previously logging in... perhaps it is actually a "hint" that you left yourself as to what your passphrase was?

It should be noted that the "DoS attack" is actually being conducted by "Good"™ servers that have updated to latest version of server code... this "DoS attack" was deliberately implemented by the devs to try to force users to update to the latest version.

Not ALL "good" servers will have updated... so the server you connected to may not be "bad"...


No, a server can't do that... as it only receives "signed" transactions when you broadcast it... only a fake client could attempt to change your unsigned transaction... So, you'd need to download and install a fake client for that to happen.


Exactly...


If you want to continue using an old version and guarantee that you can find a compatible server to connect to, you'd probably need to install Bitcoin Core and then run your own Electrum server that doesn't include the "DoS attack" patch.

The error occurred AFTER you clicked "send" right? So it sounds like it was possibly just a connection/service error with TrustedCoin server... and the Electrum 2FA plugin was unable to connect to send it the transaction for TrustedCoin to sign... or it was timing out.

Did you click "Options" and then select "BIP39 Seed" when you were trying to restore in Electrum? Electrum uses it's own seed system, so you need to explicitly select the BIP39 option to make it work with non-Electrum seeds.

Otherwise, do as bl4ankcode suggested... and make sure you're selecting the correct script type when restoring based on the address type that your Ledger was using.

Finally, make sure you are using the latest version of Electrum and that it is correctly synced (should have a green dot in the bottom right corner)... if it says "synchronising" with blue arrows, or you have a "red dot", it won't show your coins.

Have you actually tried contacting Ledger and asking them about it and the possibility of getting a free replacement if you cover shipping?

Some companies (that provide decent customer service and try to maintain a good reputation) will still honour warranties if they have only just expired and it has only been a month or so.

Mycelium is a fairly solid wallet with a lot of options... you can create multiple wallets, is BIP39 compatible, can import single keys, now supports SegWit and is compatible with popular hardware wallets like Ledger and Trezor (I think they support KeepKey as well). It has a fairly decent UI and is generally fairly solid... although I still kind of dislike the transaction fee selection method with the dual sliders... I just want to type it in FFS! But that is really just personal preference... and the devs are still actively updating it.

Having said that, it has had a bit of a "checkered" past... the Mycelium colored coin ICO incident where they collected "millions" and apparently blew it all on a "developer meeting" in the Mediterranean... the in-app shilling of a "dodgy russian ICO" incident... the in-app ads incident... taking sooooo long to support SegWit and implementing BCH support first... the "0 balance bug" (really just a failed refresh, but understandably frightening for some).

It's been a rollercoaster... that's for sure!


Other than that... your options are somewhat limited... the Android version of Electrum is more of a "companion" wallet to be used alongside the Desktop version, rather than a "full" version of Electrum, as it is missing some key features (you can't import BIP39 seeds, doesn't support coin control, freezing addresses etc)

You can use the "Recovery Check" app that is available for the Ledger Nano S... It's in the "Manager" section of the Ledger Live app.

It lets you enter your 24 words and will tell you if that matches the one stored on the device:
Video demonstration of "Recovery Check" is on YouTube here


Refer here for more details: https://support.ledger.com/hc/en-us/articles/360007223753-Recovery-Check

Yeah... that 2nd picture makes more sense The first one was quite broken

With only 1 seed and 3x xpubs... the thief would only effectively be able to recreate a "watching-only" version of your MultiSig... they would not be able to spend the coins as they only have one set of private keys... and in your 2-of-3... they need 2 sets.

Your setup will remain secure as long as a thief only has one of the seeds... if they broke into TWO of your locations and got TWO of the seeds (and the three xpubs), your coins are as good as gone.


That seems like you actually imported ALL the seeds... or that you didn't actually put the coins into the multisig in the first place, and had only put the coins into and address in the standard wallet generated from the same seed you imported into Android.

What btcrecover log? There is no btcrecover log...

OP was simply questioning what the worst case scenario would be for trying to recover his seed, based on the fact that "12 words with incorrect order = X possibilities"... and "3 missing words = Y possibilities"... As I understand it, that doesn't mean OP thinks they are actually missing 3 words, just that with 3 missing words, they'd need to check 8,589,934,592 tries.

They even stated:


They have 12 words... but ledger isn't accepting it... OP has stated it wasn't a ledger seed to begin with. In my opinion, the most likely reasons are:

#1. It isn't a "valid" BIP39 seed (ie. bad checksum due to writing down a "similar" BIP39 word from what the original word was... ie. kit instead of kite etc)
#2. It was never a BIP39 seed to begin with (ie. it is was an Electrum seed, hence why ledger says invalid)

- btcrecover should be able to identify and correct for #1 in a fairly reasonable amount of time (assuming that OP has a known bitcoin address or xpub to test against)
- Electrum (or [ur=https://github.com/FarCanary/ElectrumSeedTester]the Electrum Seed Tester[/url]) should be able to identify #2 instantly.

There seems to be a lot of confusion here...

You sent 0.00654146 BTC (~US$26) to 3E2M262zMphpi6mCd6NvZfA113QcbTxWKr around the 15th March, in this transaction: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/8e2ba5985a025caa11cc109b57160aeb3ae542cc4d86fe6450eb2034cf6226cc

What exactly are they claiming? That you didn't send it? That they didn't receive it? or that you didn't send enough?

Were you supposed to send €46 but you only sent €23? or were you trying to send €23 and they say they got €46?

Note that "Double Spend" is not sending money twice... it doesn't mean you've accidentally sent them 2 transactions or paid the vendor twice etc... it is a (somewhat confusing) term used to describe a situation where you can create and broadcast two different transactions using the same coins.

Generally, this is done to try and trick or scam a receiver of the first transaction that they have been "paid"... but it is the 2nd transaction that gets confirmed, which sends the coins back to the an address owned by the scammer. It is actually quite difficult to pull this off in practice... as most nodes will identify a "double spend transaction" for what it is and refuse it as being "invalid".

What wallet was it generated on?

If it wasn't generated on a BIP39 compatible wallet (for instance, Electrum generated seed), then the seed recover script won't be able to recover it, as the script only works with BIP39 compatible wallet seeds.


If all of your written words do appear in the BIP39 wordlist, but it says "invalid", then I suspect you might actually have an Electrum seed... it uses the same BIP39 wordlist, but has a different method for generating seed mnemonics and most Electrum seeds will show as "invalid" when put into a BIP39 wallet (like Ledger).


The only other option, is that you accidentally wrote down a similar word from the list. If that is the case, the seed recovery script should find the error pretty quick as long as you have a known BTC address to search for.

Sorry, just to clarify, because it isn't 100% clear to me from previous posts and replies...

When you are restoring from seed, does the new "empty" wallet, have the same type of addresses as your "old" wallet did? That is to say... old wallet had addresses that start with "1"... new wallet also has addresses that start with "1"?

Or are they completely different? Old wallet = addresses start with "1", new wallet = addresses start with "bc1"? etc...

That is not correct... no-one should trust that message with the 1BVb address... It would appear that the user has simply posted the message/address/signature incorrectly, if we re-arrange it into the "standard" format used by BrainwalletX, and use:


Then it verifies OK with the original address... So, I would suggest that DeepOntion-DevTeam repost their message using the correct format.