It seems that how you think the trust system should work... and how it actually works are not the same. It is quite well known that: - Trust is NOT moderated - The only person that can remove/adjust any trust rating, is the person that left it Is the trust you have received incorrect? Yes, I would say that it was... but after making this public, you should have contacted Lucius directly. Your stubbornness in consistently refusing to do so is somewhat confusing?  In any case, it seems that suchmoon went ahead and contacted Lucius on your behalf. I'm sure that if Lucius refuses to remove/alter the trust, then DT member will take appropriate action (as the new changes to the DT system were designed... theymos wanted there to be potential consequences for leaving false/inappropriate ratings) I know it sounds insulting to you but people get pissed at each other on the intertubes all the time. I hope this can be sorted out without escalation, as nobody lost money or anything else of value in this dispute. I have PMed Lucius since you don't want to.
What sounds insulting? If you look into my sent feedback, I never gave anyone negative feedback, ever He wasn't saying YOU sounded insulting... or accusing you of any wrongdoing... he was saying that it might sound insulting TO you.  I'm wondering if there is something of a language barrier here that is causing some added confusion? |
|
|
|
I had a similiar issue to this however it only affected the hot-wallet (watching wallet) because it wouldn't sync. I've upgraded that version and managed to get the transaction signed on the offline computer.
You might find that having different "hot" and "cold" wallet versions may not work... Users have had difficulty in the past with this sort of setup because the unsigned transaction format changed slightly between certain versions of Electrum... so the older version on the offline machine was unable to decode and sign the unsigned transaction created by the newer version. Keeping the online and offline wallet versions the same is generally considered best practice. I assumed Segwit was backwards compatible so using old versions should still work?
Technically it is backwards compatible at the raw Bitcoin protocol level... However, with Electrum, you have extra layers on top... So, it's more that the older versions of Electrum don't quite know how to handle the "unexpected" data, and can end up in an endless synchronising loop. I believe that when you export an unsigned transaction in Electrum, it includes all the necessary transaction data for the offline system to be able to sign it... so if your exported, unsigned transaction includes SegWit outputs, the older offline version may not know how to handle that and fail to sign the transaction. |
|
|
|
You're trying to bot a BTC faucet?  This is not the appropriate board... and I doubt you'll find any assistance here. Also, while I can't actually find any "terms of service" on the freebitco.in site, I suspect that botting is frowned upon (hence the inclusion of the recaptcha). |
|
|
|
Electrum 2.8.2 is too old. It won't synchronise properly as it has issues decoding newer transactions. There are also some security vulnerabilities in such an old version. You need to update to the latest version (currently version 3.3.4) to be able to see your transaction. You can download it from here: https://electrum.org/#download |
|
|
|
Yes, I tried 3.3.3 and it is still not recognizing it. I used the standalone version. I removed the device from the device manager, then unplugged Keepkey and plugged in again. Booted up 3.3.3 and it keeps saying to connect the device though it IS connected. So, this might not be a version issue.
Hmmmm... maybe try older versions like 3.2.3 ( https://download.electrum.org/3.2.3/) see if the problem still persists... Also, just checking that you don't have Chrome+KeepKey plugin open when trying to use Electrum right? As far as I'm aware, you can't have both open at the same time... I will try on another PC. I am wondering if it has to do with where the wallet files are stored?
I don't think that would have any effect... the wallet files are stored in "%AppData%/Electrum/wallets" (this is usually C:\Users\YOURUSER\AppData\Roaming\Electrum\wallets on Windows 10), and your user account should have all the necessary permissions for this folder. But trying on another PC is a good idea. |
|
|
|
Not quite what I was getting at. I mean it is fairly obvious that it is a Dyos wallet shill account... but are they just trying to drum up business... or is Dyos itself a scam? Also, this might not be the best place to post this question... I'm not really up to speed with the finer points of Meta, so I am happy for advice on a better place to post this  |
|
|
|
Also, how do you guys manage to find and deal with 0 posts two days old accounts?
Sorry for your loss but why do you do business with very new accounts.
Simple greed... they want "something for nothing"... in this case (and most like it), Amazon GCs at 75% off! These sorts of deals simply don't exist... they're all scams... but people can't help themselves so they give money to completely unknown users with no history without using escrow and wonder why they get scammed.  |
|
|
|
... told me that they could not do anything because the hard drive is physically damaged.
If the hard drive is physically damaged (most likely damage to the read heads or platters... then the chances of using software to recover the data is pretty much nil. It would require specialist hardware to be able to recover bits and pieces and the costs involved would likely be very high... their initial quote of $400 does not seem outrageous. I was generally pretty careful with my laptop. However, I am wondering if the ramp agents who place luggage in and out of the airport weren't very careful. During the end of January, I went on Southwest airlines and brought my laptop to Florida with me while I attended my cousins wedding.
You put your laptop in checked baggage??!?  First rule of air travel is never put any fragile or valuable items in checked baggage! |
|
|
|
Windows 10
Electrum 3.3.4
Updated to latest KeepKey firmware 2 days ago
The cable works fine as the Keepkey will work with the Chrome Keepkey plug in.
So, it seems like an Electrum issue.
Did you try downgrading Electrum like I suggested? the 3.3.3 releases (and associated digital signatures) are available on the Electrum download server here: https://download.electrum.org/3.3.3/You should be able to simply download the "standalone .exe" version (electrum-3.3.3.exe) and run it from any directory and it will use your normal Electrum data directory and wallets etc. It is the easiest way to test various versions (without having to uninstall/reinstall etc). Otherwise, you might need to try and forcefully remove the KeepKey drivers using Device Manager, then "re-install" it. |
|
|
|
The command:
python3 run_electrum
give this error:
Error: Could not import PyQt5 on Linux systems, you may try 'sudo apt-get install python3-pyqt5'
Just out of curiosity... did you try to run that 'sudo' command? If so, what did it output? Did it try to install pyqt5 and fail? As for the rest of your errors, as I thought, it is simply that your OS is too old  So, aside from updating the OS (which I'm not even sure is possible on such an old macbook), your only other options are to use the older version and ignore the popups (can be easily avoided by using a known "good" server)... or to buy a newer macbook |
|
|
|
So many pots... so many kettles... not nearly enough popcorn!  |
|
|
|
|
Ok... if you see your address, then you have the correct wallet (in "1. Armory")... If you don't see any transactions, it would appear that Armory has not "synced" properly.
Can you post the new log file onto pastebin? It will help determine why Armory is not finding your transaction.
|
|
|
|
Testnet version of Armory (3. Armory (Testnet)), should create addresses that begin with a "m", "n" or a "2". You said that your address started with a "1"... this is a mainnet address. You should simply start up "1. Armory"... and you should see the correct wallet, with the correct address. You can see the addresses in your wallet by clicking the "wallet properties" button, then click the ">" next to "unused addresses", then click the ">" next to "P2PKH".  If you do that... do you see the "1" address that your funds were sent to? |
|
|
|
It looks like you're mixing up your networks and blockchains... From your log: -INFO - 20:47:26: (BlockUtils.cpp:915) blkfile dir: /media/win/2/bitcoin-0.17.1/bin/blocks
-INFO - 20:47:26: (BlockUtils.cpp:916) lmdb dir: /home/win/.armory/testnet3/databases
...
-ERROR - 20:47:26: (BDM_mainthread.cpp:306) BDM thread failed: Unexpected network magic bytes found in block data file
You are attempting to use "Armory (Testnet)" with "Bitcoin Mainnet"... this will not work. You need to use the mainnet version of Armory... the one that you called: "1. Armory" |
|
|
|
Sorry... I am a bit confused. OK
Hey. I ran my wallet. Wallet online. But the problem is different when installing I received 3 labels: 1.Armory 2. Armory(offline) 3. Armory(Test Network)
And the transaction was on the wallet that 3. Armory(Test Network).
1. Armory online and working, but 3. Armory(Test Network) is offline. I don't understand how do online.
You said you started Armory by using the "Testnet" link... and that you sent funds to that wallet. But Testnet has no value... it is NOT used for sending money/funds. It is meant to be used for testing purposes by developers etc. To get Armory (Test Network) "online", you would need to have "Bitcoin Core (Testnet)" running... That is the Testnet version of Bitcoin Core that has the Testnet blockchain... this is a completely different blockchain to the normal Bitcoin blockchain. You do understand that Testnet is NOT the main Bitcoin network right? So, if you created a wallet in "3. Armory (Test Network)"... and got an address from it... and sent funds to that address on the MAIN Bitcoin Network (I'm not even sure if that is actually possible), then you are going to have trouble seeing that transaction and getting those funds... Can you please post your full log file using pastebin.com? |
|
|
|
Sounds like it might be a Python version issue... I vaguely recall seeing that the 3.3.x versions of Electrum require a slightly newer version of Python than the one shipped with a lot of Linux distros... MacOSX is a derivative of Linux, so it is possible on such an old version of OSX that it doesn't have the required versions of one or more Python libraries. Also, refer: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/3685I don't think this has been resolved as yet... Have you tried running Electrum from the console and see if any error messages are generated when trying to run 3.3.x versions? |
|
|
|
I m using eletreum2.93.
About the old version: i've seen similar behaviour that was fixed with an upgrade.
Yes... there is an issue with pre v3.x versions of Electrum that are unable to decode SegWit transactions properly... it causes the wallet to fail to display transactions properly and can show as "synchronizing" indefinitely. Update to v3.3.4 from here: https://electrum.org/#downloaddo you know if i instal the latest 3.3.4 version, do i need the seed or only the password to acces it? to be honest i have something copieddown but i m not 100 percent sure that it is the seed, it was long time ago.
If you simply uninstall 2.9.3 and then reinstall 3.3.4, it shouldn't remove your wallet... You should be able to open Electrum and it will show your default wallet the same as the previous version. Uninstalling doesn't delete wallets by design. To be safe, you can do as mocacinno says and backup the wallet file... Location of wallet file on various platforms is listed here: http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/faq.html#where-is-my-wallet-file-located |
|
|
|
I'd suggest you open an issue on the Electrum GitHub here: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issuesIt is possible that the KeepKey integration has been broken by changes in the newer version. One way to test this theory would be to download an older version from the Electrum download server ( https://download.electrum.org/), say version 3.3.3... and see if the KeepKey works with that older version. If it works with 3.3.3 (ie. it is connected/recognised), but doesn't work with the latest 3.3.4 version, then you'll need to open an issue on the GitHub linked above letting the devs know that it is broken... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
