if you are only missing one word of your Seed finding the correct one is easy as long as you know the place where the word is missing. for example if you are missing the third or last or whatever word. i don't know how Metamast works but they usually share the word list with bitcoin. there are 2048 words which means missing one word and knowing the place of it you only have to test 2048 seeds. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039/english.txtif you don't know the place of it, the number of possible seeds grow huge because there are simply too many variants. you have 12! possible seeds (479,001,600) only if you know all 12 words (it can be more because my math sucks sometimes). if you also miss 1 it will be near infinity. Not knowing the last word means 2048 possibles. Not knowing one word or it's position means 2048*12 possibles. Either is easily solvable. |
|
|
|
This is the exact reason to download a desktop wallet and store them there.
Bitcoin Core is the one to use and nothing else.
Online wallets are for exchanges only.
Jaxxx has to many to choose from evena browser wallet which I can see it being a disaster and to have your coins stolen quite easily. As I assume this is what has happened to your coins you claim the program has done in losing them.
I personally use electrum wallet. It gives me the feacher of 2fa verification before every withdraw. But you are mentioning the core wallet here. Could you please let us know how much secure the core wallet is? Or how can we secure the core wallet? Its also a bulky installation isn't it? Core is very, very secure. You can run it with a startup option set so it does not require a huge database. I recommend it highly. |
|
|
|
This is a first attempt at creating a compatibility matrix for deterministic wallets. In other words, it tries to answer the questions: When using two different wallet apps from different devs, will I have the same list of addresses and the same balance if I: - use the same mnemonic sentence (seed) in both?
- export a master private key from one into the other?
- export a master public key from one into the other (creating a watch-only wallet)?
For now, it's an Excel file available for viewing or downloading here: https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=584F122BA17116EE%21313. It has four tabs. The first, "Details", lists out (hopefully) all relevant details of various wallets that might make them compatible or not with one another. The next three are calculated from the first; they try to answer the three corresponding questions above. (Sorry, but Excel Online doesn't render vertical text correctly, so they look a bit ugly online. Either download a local file, or hover over the wallet names in the first row to read them; they're in the same order as the wallet names in the first column.) I'm definitely interested if anyone has any input; in particular I'm not at all confident that the Details tab has everything correct, and it's probably missing some deterministic wallets that I'm unaware of. If there are any wallet devs who could take a quick look at their wallet on the first tab to see if I got anything wrong, that'd be great! I'm also not sure that the list of requirements (spelled out on the three right-most tabs) is sufficient to guarantee compatibility. (Also: don't rely on this without doing your own testing first!) I'm not sure where, if anywhere, this is headed, but it'd be nice to turn this into a set of web-based tables on GitHub, perhaps something jekyll-based like this. Again, input is most welcome. I agree it should be a GitHub project. Very nice and innovative idea! |
|
|
|
Mostly the ones on eBay are mostly used and nearly depreciated or nearing their estimated useful life which is why before you proceed in buying on those sites it's better to be cautious since we are talking about a large amount of money here and this are wallets we used to safe keep our cryptocoins so as much as possible buy on the official websites.
What do you mean by "nearing their estimated useful life"? Of course I would definitely buy a new one, but it's a piece of electronic after all. It doesn't degrade in a year or two You are correct, but there are numerous reasons why it is preferred to order these devices from the manufacturer. Amazon usually has a dozen suppliers, as well as itself stocking them. |
|
|
|
You could do so but you need to check if you can generate your own recovery seed and you need to make sure the device is not tampered (this might be difficult to figure out)with.
So advice would be: no, just order @ the manufacturer
You don't need a hardware wallet. Just format your computer with a fresh install of windows (original iso from Microsoft) get all the updates, don't click on anything else than the required buttons to generate wallets and save the private keys offline only if you want to accumulate crypto. This is as safe as a HW wallet. ....
No it is not as safe as a HW wallet. That is impossible. But for any who would use a computer, the best would be a linux os, next best Mac, and worst of all windows. However, for one who did use a computer, it's worth noting that you could load a reliable wallet, do some operations, then make backups and delete the wallet, saving only the backups and having nothing on the (risky ) computer. That's pretty darn close to a paper or hardware wallet. Done properly one should save notes as to the operating system version, maybe a copy of it, the wallet version and a copy of it, possibly the libraries the wallet uses (linux bistro), as well as the data such as the "wallet.dat" files. There are many cases of people having an old archaic "wallet.dat" file and trying to restore it with today's blockchain and today's wallet software, operating systems, and libraries. SIDE NOTE: Management of these factors is impossible with IOS/Android, there you get what they send you. Therefore IOS/ANDROID can be excluded as useful. |
|
|
|
So how excited should I be while it still appears to be in the concept phase? Is it one of those "if it sounds too good to be true... etc" deals?
You should be fairly excited. The proposal comes from Laolu, one of the primary architects of the Lightning Network and main developer of LND. While perhaps the proposal as it was exactly written in the email won't happen, I'm sure that something very similar to it will be created and implemented. Has anyone identified any pitfalls or shortcomings yet? Or is it simply too early to tell?
There is active discussion about this on the mailing list (I haven't really been following), and it is still in the concept phase so expect the proposal to change and the issues worked out over time. I would like to disagree with you but I found in the past that the "Ban" button comes in to play so best not to say anything that might upset the moderator. what's not to like about thinking like .... we repurpose some unused space in the onion per-hop payload of the
onion blob to signal our protocol (and deliver some protocol-specific data),
then use additive secret sharing to ensure that the receiver can't pull the
payment until they have enough shares to reconstruct the original pre-image. |
|
|
|
I've bolded my comments that answer your assertions, leaving one. "It is a piece of paper...."
No, a "paper wallet" is not a piece of paper. It might be, but it might also be engraved phrases on steel, or other materials. And there isn't necessarily just one copy in one location.
One more time. A paper wallet is simply writing down and storing private keys.
Sure. Paper wallets are basically private keys that are stored offline. A paper wallet isn't just simply writing down and storing private keys. The paper wallets would have to be generated and spent somehow. If it somehow gets into contact with a computer that has at least been connected to the internet, it isn't considered air-gapped. It can be secure, if you generate and spend it securely. But the whole process is basically spinning up an offline desktop wallet which I would consider just using it instead of going through the whole fiasco of having to store it and spend it securely. If you do get any malware on your desktop, your private keys could get compromised, desktop wallets or not. I don't find it particularly reasonable to say that a paper wallet is more secure as a desktop wallet when it isn't generated securely most of the time, regardless of how big of a risk it is. It's not wrong to say that paper wallets are secure. But the thing is, most people generate it and spend it online which makes it much less secure that it seems. I'm having some trouble parsing your comments and trying to understand in what possible context they might be true. I think you are saying that sloppy use of paper wallets is no better than an online wallet. However, I can't agree with that. Suppose you have a sloppy and careless user, who may have malware. He creates some paper wallets and five years later remembers he has them, and does something with them. Surely he is better off than the sloppy and careless user who had bitcoin on his malware infested computer for five years. |
|
|
|
I use Notepad ++ and whenever I load it, it sometimes tells me a new update is available, giving me the opportunity to update it.
Is there a way to do this with the wallet as well?
This is not a feature, but a security risk. Before any critical update (such as one that involves your money) you must insure that you have backups, that they are current and that they function properly. There are also issues with a particular version of an application and it's compatibility and functionality with the operating system and libraries. |
|
|
|
A paper wallet, is a piece of paper where you write your private keys, which must be imported, allowing a user to validate the entire operation.
- Immune to computer viruses that steal from software wallets.
- Harder to use.
It's not. Paper wallets are still as susceptible to theft as a normal desktop wallet. The only difference it has is that the wallet itself is stored on paper and thus its exposure is lesser but their risk is roughly the same. You would still have to spend it securely and its to import it on a clean computer or on a computer that has never been online. It's not secure if its not generated and spent securely. Paper wallets are harder, sure. But they aren't that impossible. It's not hard to use it on a client, say Electrum. The importing and spending of it is rather fast. Risk is roughly the same? No it is not. Anything which provides offline, air gapped storage is lower risk than anything that does not. You can't dodge this by noting the "moments of insecurity" such as when a paper wallet is read in. There are ways around those risk factors. A paper wallet is no less than writing down a private key. Since it is possible to store it in encrypted fashion, it may be more than just writing down a private key... there are still risks, some shared with desktop wallets. for example the risk of creating the paper wallet on a not-clean computer and having your private keys compromised. this is shared with desktop wallets. after creating it, the risk is losing the wallet. it is a piece of paper after all, it can be lost, ruined if it is exposed to water, fire,... and of course the risk of someone simply reading your key and using it  but each of these can be prevented as long as you are aware of the risk itself and the way to eliminate it. I've bolded my comments that answer your assertions, leaving one. "It is a piece of paper...." No, a "paper wallet" is not a piece of paper. It might be, but it might also be engraved phrases on steel, or other materials. And there isn't necessarily just one copy in one location. One more time. A paper wallet is simply writing down and storing private keys. |
|
|
|
So as you can see from the notice above, ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2702103.0 ) Electrum is vulnerable, and has been for quite a while. Its just that they have discovered it now, and also that their first fix wasn't a fix either, that have upgraded it again. I for one am not feeling much better after this upgrade either, because tomorrow maybe another one like this. So is it time to move from electrum to another option? What do you guys think? Electrum is a great wallet. A vulnerability may be found in any wallet (even in a hardware one, Ledger is an example). IMHO no point of moving from Electrum if you are satisfied with it. A finding of a problem with Electrum 3.03 and earlier certainly is a reason to move from those versions of Electrum. Logically that would be to later versions of Electrum that do not have the problem. Note that for certain cold storage applications it's required to not be updating the programs used say in an air gapped computer. |
|
|
|
A paper wallet, is a piece of paper where you write your private keys, which must be imported, allowing a user to validate the entire operation.
- Immune to computer viruses that steal from software wallets.
- Harder to use.
It's not. Paper wallets are still as susceptible to theft as a normal desktop wallet. The only difference it has is that the wallet itself is stored on paper and thus its exposure is lesser but their risk is roughly the same. You would still have to spend it securely and its to import it on a clean computer or on a computer that has never been online. It's not secure if its not generated and spent securely. Paper wallets are harder, sure. But they aren't that impossible. It's not hard to use it on a client, say Electrum. The importing and spending of it is rather fast. Risk is roughly the same? No it is not. Anything which provides offline, air gapped storage is lower risk than anything that does not. You can't dodge this by noting the "moments of insecurity" such as when a paper wallet is read in. There are ways around those risk factors. A paper wallet is no less than writing down a private key. Since it is possible to store it in encrypted fashion, it may be more than just writing down a private key... |
|
|
|
Hi. Sorry for taking so long to reply. The answer is that no, I never all coins in the ledger. But, I think I know why...
Different apps have different logic for how they scan addresses. They're not supposed to. They're supposed to follow the Bitcoin BIPS. But I think my addresses had a gap, so the Ledger was skipping over it while the Trezor wasn't. That resulted in different values. From memory, I think the problem eventually went away.
But, After understanding the technology a lot better now, I am less worried. I've spent the last few months writing code for the Trezor so I have a very good understanding of how address generation works now.
How would your addresses have a gap? Unless you imported private keys that should not be the case. |
|
|
|
If you install a proper public, stable Linux distribution in a laptop that has been properly formatted with no hidden partitions or anything of the sort, then you should be fine. I see no way that your wallet could be compromised by malware in this way [...]
I ask of you to explain how it would be possible.
A laptop will quite a bit of software in it even when you've erased the drive: There's BIOS/EFI. Any operating system you install will at some point be interfacing with this code. The hard drive controller has a CPU running code in it. Perhaps it has malware in it that looks for sectors containing wallets. If such a sector passes through the controller, maybe it alters the seeds/keys/addresses. This would be operating system agnostic. If the laptop has WiFi and Bluetooth, that's two more processors running their own embedded code. Keyboard controller. Trackpad controller. Power management chip. Even batteries may contain a CPU. Almost everything on this list can have reprogrammable "ROM" these days. If there was ever malware on the computer, how do you know it didn't leave something behind? Well, I notice this is an interesting question. Are there cases of malware spreading between the resident processors in a modern computer system? Note. Let's not seg over to trying to refute the irrefutable hypothesis here (EG "Well can you prove it couldn't happen?"). This is a straightforward question. Should we be worried about malware spreading between subsystems in a modern PC? |
|
|
|
....
I know that the electrum changes the purse addresses for security reasons, but why is there no translation history? (A rhetorical question)
Because electrum uses the seed words to generate a pseudo random sequence, the same seed words will ALWAYS generate the same sequence of public and private keys. Hence you will see the history contained in the blockchain from those keys. If you see no history then you don't have not created the same keys, which means the seed word sequence is not the same. With 2FA it's a bit more complicated but it remains that you do not have the right pseudo random sequence. |
|
|
|
I have a question, the answer is not found.
if I have no seed. I can go in my wallet. See the parishes. When i try to send coins Electrum asks for code from google authentificator.
I don't have since removed for a long time program.
Question : is it possible somehow to remove this ? reset ? request again ?
2fa is usually a cell phone. Why not restore the google auth app to another cell phone? In the documentation for the google auth there is a procedure for changing from one phone to another. Caveat - I don't know that that works if you have long ago deinstalled the auth, but it is worth looking into. |
|
|
|
Are you sure it was a bitcoin wallet ? It could be of any alternate currencies wallet, so just try to remember. I had a look at your screen shots and it seems that the wallet is empty as there are high amount of debit transaction also. You can try your luck and be careful from the scammers who are just waiting for the people like you. All the best mate.
the most popular back then was probably litecoin, try that first |
|
|
|
My question is even more trivial ..
But Jaxx is a wallet for BTC, ETc and LTC
So if I shapeshift from of those 3 to something else ... Like dash .. where do I see my balance ?
Or are you saying I need to enter my private key on block chain.info to see it? But isn't that private key a BTC private key?
Confused..
It's not trivial. You don't have an audit trail when Shapeshift is called from within Jaxx. For this reason I have to advise against this, although granted, it looks like a cool feature of a wallet. |
|
|
|
Sixteen side dice are available and enable quick and easily producing random numbers.
Any computer library random function has serious defects.
Side note.
It's likely possible to build a random generator with basic electronic parts, such that it's all out in the open and can be examined.
This is wrong. “likely possible”? Is that how you give cryptography advice? .... This is an important question. What you said encourages homebrew...... You certainly covered a lot of ground in that response. At this moment my time is short so let me cover a couple of points. A. Anything that can be construed as encouraging home-brew is wrong. B. Dice cannot be the "home-brew" of which you warn against. C. When I mentioned making random generators, I had basic transistor theory in mind. Google quickly enough shows people have done it many times. Here 'ya go. https://makezine.com/projects/really-really-random-number-generator/What I was getting to here is the idea that this is all out in the open, like open source code. Anyone can examine it, and let's say anyone can connect a test probe anywhere in the circuit. What you see is what you get. You can criticize it and find flaws, then the circuit can be revised and improved. But still it's all totally out in the open. Now on the contrary, say that I encapsulate and miniaturize this circuit, and sell it to you. In fact you don't know what is inside that black box. Similarly you don't know what is inside the "black box" of your CPU. Not without some serious lab work, and even then I would argue that you know in part only. |
|
|
|
1. Is this a good idea to generate random numbers with physical dice? I've heard that cheap gaming dice have poor quality of randomness, and if their sides are not a power of 2, you have to do some additional operations to remove bias when generating random bits.
......
Sixteen side dice are available and enable quick and easily producing random numbers. Any computer library random function has serious defects. Side note. It's likely possible to build a random generator with basic electronic parts, such that it's all out in the open and can be examined. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
