Question... whatever happened to the TitanCoin token that was hyped as the first ICO on Byteball? I apparently have some tokens... did the project die?

This is true... but OP claimed he had a "segwit" wallet with 3-type addresses that he was attempting to restore... so, I guess the options are:

1. Original wallet was actually a multisig wallet, NOT segwit
2. Original wallet was a 2FA legacy wallet, NOT segwit
3. Wallet was P2SH-Nested SegWit generated from BIP39 (or Electrum SegWit) seed
4. Wallet was P2SH-Nested SegWit generated from Hardware Wallet

If the OP is 100% sure they had a SegWit wallet, then the only real option would be #3... if OP is just thinking "3-type address = SegWit, I had 3-type address, so I must have had SegWit"... then several of those options become a lot more viable!

Were there any older versions of Electrum that allowed you to specify the derivation path when creating a new seed? (not restoring). If so, would that have allowed a user to specify/set m/49'/0'/0' and generate P2SH-segwit addresses? I honestly don't recall if that was ever a feature... I don't remember seeing it.

I'm not sure I understand why the OP got given a red trust in the first place? He put up a post (unedited as far as I can tell) wanting to buy BTC using Bank Wire/SEPA... and stated he only wanted to use a trusted forum escrow...

A bunch of people start going on about only using trusted escrows, and then condoras pops up questioning how legit the OP is and then it descends into "I'm more legit than you'll ever be"/"Go spam someone else's thread" type silliness, until IdiotCoder pops up with "enjoy your red trust"...

To wit, IdiotCoder's trust states:

I have not seen anything in the thread that indicated that the guy was asking for a Paypal (PP) trade? And as far as I'm aware... a bank wire transfer is pretty much regarded as being irreversible unless fraud can be proven and both banks involved agree and the funds haven't already been disbursed.

For reference... here are the profile links:

Rafie35: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2500042
Rifat0099: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1138127
Lafaka: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2500056

Wait... so the OP is claiming that an effective sample size of 9 rolls is statistical "proof" that FJ is a scam?

If you had made all 2000 rolls wagering 0.064 ... and the result was still at 55.6%, then that might be worth further investigation... however, I would suspect that you would find that it would still be in the ~65% range

You shouldn't "cherrypick" results that match your hypothesis... that's called "confirmation bias"

You have conveniently ignored that 0.0015 bets (total of 10 bets, similar sample size) are at 50% winrate and that the 0.003 btc bets are at 55.6% winrate and are actually double the number of 0.064 wagers... why have you ignored them from your pretty graph? oh... because they're actually "lower" bets... and work against your hypothesis

In addition, your graphed doubled up on 0.008... which excludes the 0.016 result at 67.8% which makes your chart look a little different. And your chosen vertical range really exaggerates the drop off at the end...

Ignoring for the moment the inclusion of the "9 roll outlier", this is your data, but including the 0.016 results, with your chosen vertical scale of 53% to 70%:


That 0.016 result that you omitted changes this a little... that upspike in the higher wagers kind of goes against your hypothesis doesn't it? Still, the last datapoint looks a bit shocking... such a drop! ZOMGWTFHAX!


Until you then view it in the whole 0% to 100% range


And we see results fairly evenly spread around the "average"... except for a 9 roll "outlier" datapoint


If we then exclude that outlier we see this:



If we go the other way and include ALL the outliers (I included every data line where there were more than 2 wagers), we get this:



Note the light blue "trend" line, that actually indicates an upwards trend in results... interesting.

Electrum never generated "3-type" (aka P2SH Nested SegWit) addresses by default... To my knowledge, Electrum has only ever used "bc1" (native SegWit) addresses when generating SegWit wallets using the standard wallet generation. The only way to generate "3-type" SegWit wallets in Electrum is from using a hardware wallet like Ledger... OR by forcing it when restoring a BIP39 seed, and then selecting the "p2sh-segwit" option (derivation path m/49'/0'/0').

OP, try going: File -> New/Restore -> name the wallet -> "Standard wallet"  -> "I already have a seed" -> Click "Options" -> Select "BIP39 Seed" -> Enter your seed -> "Next" -> select "ps2h-segwit"

That should generate a p2sh-segwit ("3-type") address wallet from your seed mnemonic... which will hopefully match your old wallet.

Also, have you tried looking in the Windows Error Log?

Have a look in the "Event Viewer", and under the "Windows Logs" section, check the "Application", "System" and "Security" logs... There might be something showing there.

It seems like it might be some weird Windows permissions error... possibly relating to either the install location or the data directory.

My advice would be "Don't Do it"... you would be simply perpetuating the "myth" that downloading the blockchain via a torrent will decrease the time required to sync... it won't. It is likely to actually be slower than just letting Bitcoin Core do it's thing and sync normally.

Remember... syncing the blockchain is NOT just simply downloading blocks.

For the record, achow101 is a very knowledgeable Bitcoin Core dev... he knows what he is talking about...

Confirm you are using the latest Bitcoin Core v0.17.1 and that you have updated to the latest version of Armory 0.96.5 from here: https://btcarmory.com/0.96.5-release/

If not, update first and try again.

If you have already updaed, please post your armory logs... you can do this with the "File -> Export Log File..." option in Armory... copy/paste the contents of the exported log file into http://pastebin.com then click the "create new paste" button... then post the unique URL generated by pastebin here.

And then look at about the 55 second mark of the video on the "About" page... and watch as the device is inserted into the SIM Tray...

On the original Kickstarter page, it also mentions:


Why do you think it is a better innovation than USB? We don't need "another standard"

USB is an already widely adopted standard compatible with a lot of devices... most current devices (excluding iOS devices) already support USB-OTG... Apple just loves their proprietary connectors like "lightning" so they can sell overpriced apple-only accessories and further lock users into their ecosystem

I seriously doubt that this system will be adopted widely.

Is it just me... or is that just a MicroSD card that also has the "sim" (smart card?) contacts on it?



As the video on their website seems to suggest it goes into the spare tray in a dual-sim unit... most of these slots actually double as a microsd card reader, I wonder if that is how it is actually interfacing with the phone?

I assume the "smart card" contacts are only used by their proprietary dongle

Did the specs change and the website hasn't been updated to reflect this change? or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "we do not adopt USB charge port"? Did you mean USB Type-C or something?

Indeed... from the bootstrap.txt file:
So you're missing around 250,000 blocks... and the files were uploaded on 24-Aug-2014 01:40

As has been mentioned several times, "syncing" the blockchain is NOT just "downloading" blocks... those blocks need to be verified and it is this processing, which is highly CPU and disk IO intensive, that is generally the bottleneck when syncing.

All the fibre bandwidth in the world won't help much if you're running on an old dual core CPU with 2 Gigs RAM using a 5400 RPM HDD

I have said the same thing several times on the "Known Alts" thread...

Just because one or more ETH addresses send tokens to another ETH address, does not make them all Alts... but no-one listens, they're already off on their witch hunt "crusade" to rid the forum of alts "abusing campaigns"

And as coinlocket$ has so neatly highlighted here... even trying to use multiple BTC addresses used as inputs in a single transaction only proves that those addresses are from the same wallet, but doesn't actually confirm wallet ownership.

As this case shows, with regards to gambling or exchange sites, deposit addresses (and the wallet containing them) are actually owned by the sites... not by the individual users... so there is no way that you can link two users of a given site as being alt accounts based on their BTC deposit addresses for that site.

Correct... In Bitcoin Core, you don't have the option to tell the wallet the address type when importing... but I believe that it doesn't check all of them. Instead, it simply imports the private key and creates the address for whatever addresstype the wallet is currently set to.

By default, Bitcoin Core uses "ps2h-segwit" addresses, but you can specify the -addresstype option on the commandline (or in bitcoin.conf) when starting up to override this temporarily... import your key to create the address you want, then shutdown and restart without the option specified to return back to default.

Note: I have NOT tested this, so would advise running some tests on a dummy wallet.dat before attempting this to ensure that it works as you want before attempting it on a "live" wallet.

OP should also note that as pooya87 suggested, sweeping the coins would be the ideal solution... by importing a private key, you will need to ensure that you update all your backups of wallet.dat as older versions of the wallet.dat will not be able to recover that private key as it was not created by the embedded seed.

which version of python do you have installed?

I vaguely recall seeing a post very similar to this... and from memory, it was because the user was using an older version of Python 3... but latest versions of Electrum need Python 3.6. I will see if I can find the reference.

EDIT: Found it! From the Electrum Release notes: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/RELEASE-NOTES#L47

The previous topic was this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088612.0

As far as I can tell the algorithm itself isn't actually different to "BIP39" when converting from mnemonic to seed.

The only difference I can find with Electrum is the calculation of the checksum when going from seed -> mnemonic. But for mnemonic -> seed you can theoretically ignore as it is just a "check" and makes no difference to the derived value of your seed... and "electrum" is used as the default passphrase instead of "mnemonic"... but the algorithm itself would appear to be identical.

It is why my "hack" of the Ian Coleman Mnemonic Code Converter works... it simply ignores the checksum (not really safe I know, but it is a "hack" ) and uses the "electrum" default passphrase, all other code is unchanged.


One of these days, I'll get around to implementing the checksum calculation

---

Paper wallets?

Ok, then it is a simple "pathing" issue preventing Armory from finding the data it needs... by default, Armory will look in the "default" Bitcoin Core installation locations... on windows, this is "C:\Users\[YOURUSERNAME]\AppData\Roaming\Bitcoin\block"

As you have instructed Bitcoin Core to store the blocks data in a custom location, you need to configure Armory to also use this custom location.

You will need to create an armoryqt.conf file and inside it you need to set "satoshi-datadir" to be the same as your Bitcoin Core datadir value:

You can read more detailed instructions regarding Armory "pathing" here: https://btcarmory.com/docs/pathing

Note that "armoryqt.conf" is just a simple text file and can be created with the text editor of your choice... but you need to ensure that it is named "armoryqt.conf" and not "armoryqt.conf.txt"... it should be created in your "C:\Users\[YOURUSERNAME]\AppData\Roaming\Armory" directory.

If you cannot see the "AppData" folder, you will need to follow the instructions to "show hidden files/folders" here: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/14201/windows-show-hidden-files

My advice would be to create yourself a new thread if you are intending on making a new accusation against Developerx11, as this thread was originally about a dispute between polypusx and Developerx11 (or possibly polypusx being deceived by an imposter... I'm honestly still not sure which version is correct )

In other news, Developerx11 hasn't been active on BCT in over a week:

Most likely because it is technically malware aka "malicious software"... as it does "Bad Things"™ that are not authorised/wanted by the user. It is software disguised to look like an Electrum wallet that sends out all your coins and/or your wallet seed/private keys/wallet file.


You'll note that is pretty much what I said...