I somehow only copied 10 of the 12 words down to multiple back ups.. so now I am researching ways to brute force my key to a mobile wallet app.. and of course I don't speak/write code so I can't just produce a cracker. Any suggestions?
You can bruteforce your seed with btcrecover ( https://github.com/gurnec/btcrecover/blob/master/docs/Seedrecover_Quick_Start_Guide.md). There is a small guide published. It is important to know which wallet you have used with your seed. Depending on the wallet you probably have to set the correct derivation path manually. But it is definetely possible to creack your seed within a short timeframe. But do not disclose your 10 words to anyone! Feel free to ask further questions if you need any help with running the script. |
|
|
|
This is a problem, and was already fixed by a firmware update.
Which took them close to 4 months to put out and still is not properly alerting & forcing users to update. What is the source for the 4 months? As far as i know this has been fixed pretty fast.. Assuming you can trust everyone who handled the package from when it left their shipping dock till when it wound up in your mailbox.
You don't have to trust anyone. You can verify everything yourself (hardware + firmware). The ledger team has published a guide: https://support.ledgerwallet.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005321449-How-to-verify-the-security-integrity-of-my-Nano-S-Of course, the fact that we have to use closed source computers to run Bitcoin Core, makes it impossible to be 100% safe esp. against state actors.
You don't have to use a closed source OS. You have decided for yourself to use closed source software. Everyone is free to use the software he wants. There are a lot of open source linux distributions available on the internet. |
|
|
|
The thing is; So far it has reached the normal confirmation for example 1000 or so.
Im not sure what you exactly mean with 'normal confirmation'. But a transactions 'receives' the first confirmation after getting included into a block. Each mined block after this first confirmations adds another one (assuming the new block is mined upon the chain which included the block with the transaction). 2-3 confirmation are enough for 'standard' amounts. For larger amounts 6 confirmation are recommended. Then what the 'unspent' means is that your $30 worth of BTC have safely arrived your destinated wallet successfully.
Thats not completely correct. Most block explorer show the outputs of unconfirmed transactions as 'unspent' too. The 'safety' of arrival is 'measured' in the amount of confirmations a transaction got. And it can only turn to 'spent' if you use them or sent it to someone.
Or if someone else uses those UTXO in a transaction. As long as the block containing the transactoin is in the longest valid chain and the coins 'have not been moved yet', they will stay 'unspent'. |
|
|
|
I know the thread very well. I've already talked to him on Github before this thread here.
And yes, I know that it contradicts his statements but his statements are sometimes extremely strange and / or hard to understand (at least for me).
You are right, there were quite some contradictions made by OP. I also had a hard time following this. I did not intend to sound harsh. I apologize for that. I only suggested it to him because he mentioned multibit now and his story fits in this case, if you restore a BIP39 Seed on electrum and set the wrong Derivation Path you get exactly what he said, No Balanca, No History etc..
I don't think his statements fit into this scenario. OP mentioned his seed recovers 2 addresses which were inside his old wallet. Therefore the seed and the derivation path are set correctly. The only guess i have at the moment is that he has imported (a) private key(s). Or he may have used addresses beyond the curreng gap limit.
@OP: Did you try to generate a bunch of new receiving- (and change-) addresses? Type this into the console of electrum: for i in range(0, 100): print wallet.create_new_address(False)
and for i in range(0, 100): print wallet.create_new_address(True) You may in-/decrease the amount (100) as you wish. |
|
|
|
1. People losses interest in crypto.
This still would not mean the death of bitcoin. If there are 2+ nodes online, it can be considered as a network (a pretty small one obviously). 2. or Some regulatory policy imposed which enables this ti do.
Regulations can't shut down bitcoin. Thats not how it works. Regulators can force provider to discard packets which have been flagged as BTC packets. But this can't be forced on 'all' routers. So thats not a way of shutting the BTC network down. if all nodes looses interest impossible to back to life again
It is still not impossible. If a miner/node goes back online with the latest copy of the blockchain, it would be 'back to life again'. Like resuming a paused movie. |
|
|
|
What do you mean "better"? I think it's hard to say what "better" if we are talking about types of transaction (in fact, just insctruction how to spend outputs). I don't think that Segwit P2WSH is better than P2PKH.
With 'better' i was refering to the total amount of fees OP has to pay while using the same amount of UTXO's as input (compared to P2PKH). Additionally segwit (bech32 and nested P2SH) are capable of being supported by the lightning network. Segwit is a requirement for a second layer solution at the current state. So IMO it is 'better'. Nore sure about the cons regarding segwit. Feel free to explain. |
|
|
|
Keeping private key in notepad or email is indirectly more secure for long term. let say in 10 years later.
Uhm, no. Keeping your private key in a .txt file on your desktop is not a good idea. Especially if its not encrypted. Email is by far more dumb than a .txt file. Please realize that email is a broken protocol. Without any security measurements its trivial to intercept/read/modify/spoof emails. Additionally i wouldn't trust all of my BTC's to a random 3rd party email server. Please use your common sense. Those kind of 'suggestions' do lead to funds getting stolen, leading to a bad reputation towards virtual currencies. |
|
|
|
Wallets generated prior HD got introduced can't be 'updated' to HD wallets. The 'old wallets' have a bunch of address (randomly) pre-generated. Hierarchical Deterministic wallets do generate the private child keys from the private parent key. ranochigo's guide is probably the fastest way of changing wallets. But make sure to close core before moving your wallet.dat. And keep one copy of your old wallet-file. Even satoshi advised to never delete a wallet: Sigh... why delete a wallet instead of moving it aside and keeping the old copy just in case? You should never delete a wallet.
|
|
|
|
I have a csv file with private keys. Can i use it ?
You can import/sweep all of your private keys into electrum. Look here for a short guide on how to import your private keys: https://bitcoinelectrum.com/importing-your-private-keys-into-electrum/Everyone, i told again and again : i'm sure about my seed and my password. When i use my seed, i recover a wallet with nothing on it, but there is two btc adress who i used in "adress".
And i had the same problem on multibit. I recovered my wallet but there was nothing on it.
Here is the same. I recover my wallet but there is nothing on it.
So , my old wallet won't work with my actual password and when i recover it, there is nothing on it.
I hope i m clear.
If you are sure about your seed and it already generated addresses which you have used, then its the correct seed. The problem is mostly caused by you. You should start answering all questions.. Did you import a private key at any moment into your ('lost') wallet?
Ok, is this a multibit seed?
Yes.. it probably is a multibit seed... thanks for your input. Maybe read the thread first before posting nonsense: I'm dying. Fucking Electrum
Electrum 2.8+ fully encrypted wallet files cannot be read...
~snip~
Thanks again Electrum great job.
The extension of a wallet from Electrum is not .dat ? I don't use bitcoincore. I don't forget the password. I' AM SURE.I explain on the other post.
The update of Electrum corrupt my wallet i'm sure of that.
My bad, i always thought that electrum wallet was .dat
And i'm sure that the wallet is from Electrum. I can't understand why my password who i wrote and the seed doesn't work.
There was a bug on my HDD when i changed Electrum version.
You ask the right question. I think but i'm not sure, the new password worked on electrum 3.04.
- and more..
|
|
|
|
Regarding Sewig address on my Nano Ledger, there are only two real type of addresses: bitcoin legacy and Sewig.
Actually there are more types of 'addresses' than legacy and se gwi t. P2PKH (starting with 1..), P2SH (starting with 3.. (multisignature)), P2WSH nested in P2SH (nested segwit, starting with 3..) and bech32 ('native' segwit; startin with bc1..). The nano s supports P2SH/P2WSH. Thats definetely better than P2PKH addresses but not as efficient as bech32. I would not consider Bcash as a real bitcoin - there's nothing that Bcash does that bitcoin couldn't do better in the matter of times...
Bcash has nothing to do with BTC. Its just a fork. And to be exactly, a pretty bad one. IMO bcash already is doomed to fail. 8mb blocks are not (and never will be) an answer to the scaling 'issue'. |
|
|
|
Someone here told me to restore a wallet with my seed and i did.
Thats right. This is the correct way of generating all of your old private-/public keypairs When i say no balance , no adress, i mean no balance and no History of transactions.
An address is not the same as the history of transactions from your wallet client. Those are stored in the wallet file. Those won't be displayed after recovering from a seed. But when i go to "adress", i find two btc adress who i used to move funds.
So we can tell that Electrum restore 2 of my old btc adress , with my seeds.
Then, obviously, your seed is correct. It should generate all of your addresses used. I hope i'm more clear now. Do i have to stop asking Dave Recovery service ?
There is no sense in asking anyone to recover this since there is nothing to recover. Your wallet/seed recovery works without a problem. Is it possible that you have imported a private key sometime in the past? Those are not included in the seed. |
|
|
|
checked all of the words, the lists, etc.
All of the words are correct words from the BIP39 wordlist? Did you also check the order of those words (rows/columns)? trying to run the seedrecovery script in python with no luck, my main question is the fact do i need to run the seedrecovery as the ledger option or myetherwallet option.
If you used the 'first' derived ETH address (which is the only address shown in the native ETH app), you should choose ledger. because the public wallet address i have is an ethereum wallet address, but that address seems to error out when i select ledger as my wallet
Did you run a script which needs a BTC address maybe? Or what exactly is the error message you get? |
|
|
|
Would importing the key into a Ledger Nano S work the same? It has wallets for BTC as well as Bitcoin Cash and Gold?
(Fortunately) you can't import private keys into the nano s. The nano s (as a hardware wallet) is designed to generate the private keys in a gapped (offline) environment. The best would be to send your coins to your nano s if you want to store them on your hardware wallet. Yes, the nano s supports BTC, bcash, BTG and a lot more. For more information look here: https://www.ledgerwallet.com/cryptocurrenciesI followed what Ranochigo recommended and i'm missing a few inputs (I only used a single address), should importing the key into a new wallet correct the issue of missing inputs?
If you import the private key corresponding to the 'address containing your missing coins', then yes. Note that, after importing the private key, you have to back your wallet file up. The seed won't generate your imported addresses. |
|
|
|
~snip~
The security advice against using Core as a wallet is that:
2) If you're running Windows.
Windows is terribly insecure so you need to take precautions not to be infected by malware that will steal your bitcoins.
There is no real 'security advice' against using core. Core is just as secured (regarding malware) as any other desktop wallet. Additionally its not like if you switch to linux you don't need any security precautions anymore. The majority of malware is written for windows, yes. But linux is by far not 'secured enough' to be called safe. |
|
|
|
With my actualy seed, i recover a wallet. But on this wallet, there is nothing on it. No balance, no adress.
4 : The correct seed. I even recover one of my btc adress and i check it i can find it on receiving adress. So this is the correct seed.
Could you please explain your situation clearly?
i hope that one day, someone will find a easy and a sure way to break a electrum wallet.
This will never be the case. This problem is not related to electrum. I tried many options and i m' very exhausted. I don't know what to do next.
You might start with answering questions you were asked earlier.. Maybe start with HCP's questions? |
|
|
|
It is simply impossible for someone to broadcast a transaction that does not follow the network rules to the network and expect anyone to accept it...
... 51% attack doesn't involve anything invalid or the breaking of rules.
I am looking at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power. Are you saying that Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control. This has the potential to double-spend transactions that previously had already been seen in the block chain. is not possible? Reversing transactions (with 51% hash rate) made from an attack has nothing to do with breaking consensus rules. The attacker has to have control over those 51% hashing power while sending an transaction. For every confirmation of a TX (he is trying to reverse) he has to mine one block additionally more than the honest miner (in a shorter amount of time). An attacker still has to broadcast blocks which meet the consensus rules. He can't just break them. And thats what ranochigo meaned. If blocks will be mined 'on top' of invalid blocks (those who don't meed these rules) this will create a fork with only one person participating, the attacker. |
|
|
|
I'm working in a online game project, Where users will deposit ETH into their account for playing game.
You seem to ask a lot questions regarding deposits/withdrawals for your website. Please be concerned that if you are not a very skilled programmer (which you obviously aren't) and you don't hire one to code it for you, someone will find a vulnerability and either 1) crash your system or 2) withdraw everything. Just a matter of time. So how is it possible to track users deposit only once, So same deposit amount can not be grabbed by our code?
Well, you credit the deposit after X confirmation. What do you exactly mean by 'grabbed by our code' ? You have to build the whole backend with security in mind. There isn't just one call to make it secured and working flawlessly How peoples do this kind of stuff?
They learn how to code or hire someone who knows how to. |
|
|
|
Actually, I do have the seed, but I can't at the moment read it. I put it in an AES256 encrypted document in my google drive,..
You might reconsider that form of backing your seed up. You shouldn't rely on a 3rd party to keep / grant you access to your seed. There is always the possibility of googles server refusing to work properly. Never rely on a 3rd party to secure your seed. Even with encryption. but the password that I have for that file in my local password manager isnt working
It seems like all of your passwords don't work? Are you sure your keyboard layout didn't change in the meantime? Did you change any other language-related settings while/before/after setting up those passwords? |
|
|
|
No, they cannot "compress" the current data, but with the adoption of the segwit they can process more transactions using the same amount of data
Including more transaction into one block still doesn't reduce the size of the blockchain. Regardless of segwit/non-segwit blocks are (mostly) full. and the lightning network can reduce the use of registry in blockchain since we can make all outside the network.
Blocks still will be mined at the same rate. And if the mempool would be empty (because somehow everyone is using LN without closing channels, whatsoever..) transactions with 1 sat/B would be confirmed within 1 block, leading to people using on-chain transactions to pay merchants etc.. again. Why should someone fund a channel and use the LN if fees would be 1 sat/B ? -> This will lead to full blocks again. So, no. The lightning network does not decrease the size of the blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
