Hi, I wanted to buy some BitcoinCash quickly through an exchange with bitcoin as the source... Usually I'd use my hardware wallet for the destination address, but I didn't have it handy, and decided I'd temporarily use a wallet that I'd create on a web site such as bitaddress.org, and then transfer to the hardware wallet when I get back home. I do not remember which web site I used to create the temporary wallet. When I created it, I copy-pasted the private key to a local file (or at least I think I did  ), thinking I could then import the private key later into a client to access the BCH. The problem is that I think I pasted the wrong information ??!? I tried multiple BitcoinCash wallets, and whenever I try to import the private key, it doesn't work (I either get a "key not valid" message, or the wallet interface doesn't let me continue the import process (the "next" button is grayed out for example). I've googled this a bit, it seems that keys would start with an L or a K, and have 52 characters ? The thing I've pasted has 66 characters, only lowercase letters + numbers, and starts with 00 (zero zero). Have I lost my btc, or is my 66-character thing really an encrypted version of my private key ? what was the type of file you "pasted it into?" some word processors change the data of a paste. For example they might split your paste into several lines. If this had occurred, there would possibly be characters added to your data, but all the original data characters would still be there. |
|
|
|
So I got myself into this situation.
I have a Bitcoin core wallet, which was up to date and all the way synced. Two days ago I tried to start it up again but when I tried to shut my laptop down I had a notification that I had no more free disc space, so Bitcoin core automatically shutted down. The day after I started my laptop again and the program was gone from my start task bar and had to go search it manually in program files. To my surprise when I opened my wallet it had to restart synchronizing all the way back from the start again. Not only that, all of my database directory was gone from the %appdata%\bitcoin folder! It started everything back from the beginning.
Of course I couldn't as I had no more free disk space. Now the strange thing is, all that space on my Hard drive went to the bitcoin database directory. But if my files are gone, and I still have no free disk space then where are they now, are they stored some place alse or hidden? Or did my hard drive crashed? If they where permanently gone I should have had free disk space again.
How can I solve this and recover my bitcoins? Please help, I'm freaking out as I'm afraid I won't be able to recover them any more as all my dat.files are gone!
Is that all under windows? If so you may find a ".lost" directory, or find these files in the trash. However, I concur with Hamilton's suggestion to turn the machine off and examine the disk from another machine. No rush on this. Right? So do you have a 2nd available computer? |
|
|
|
.....
You should NOT parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you.
You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.
 Parasitize? Miners mine for profit. |
|
|
|
But I do have keys and my wallet seems pretty pro and has lots of support. It all just seems a bit vague for us crypto investors that are not tech savvy.
Because the word "wallet" is very misleading. The blockchain holds the data and the "wallet" is a means of creating new blockchain entries and/or checking on existing blockchain entries. Wallet software must assemble a transaction and send it to the miner pools, then the transaction is included in a block and becomes part of the chain. But the typical idea of "wallet" is something that contains something valuable. If coin could move from wallet to blockchain then wallet could contain coin. But it can't. Coin can only move from one address to another. |
|
|
|
Understanding the 74k, not guessing, can only be achieved by looking at two statistical measures. For example, if 74k people got new Coinbase accounts yesterday, and there were 74k unconfirmed transactions, nobody would think anything of it. Similar, if 150k transactions with tiny fees and 74k unconfirmed transactions, there's the answer. But just the 74k unconfirmed transaction number, could be anything. |
|
|
|
Hey Guys. I would like to export my private keys from Core Wallet. Let's say I have several addresses with at least one incoming transaction on each. Would that mean I will have to a private key for each address individually, or would I rather receive one key for all addresses?
Thanks!
Usually it's a mess. You can dump them all as is, or move the coin to one key and then dump just that one. |
|
|
|
i use this in my office work, where there is nothing important in my office laptop.
it's checking 2~3 addresses per seconds depending on connection speed, which means about 10,000 addresses per hour.
hope someday i can find something with it.
If you hope to find an address with money in it, you didn't understand Bitcoin at all. i know and page already said it : It is a very tiny possibility such as you search a small stone in the Universe.
but i use this as hope. with low chance to be true...and the entire town of Las Vegas is based on suckers with bad math skills. You're advocating the download of a program that's been noted to contain viruses, dude....with an appeal to greed. |
|
|
|
....
As I understand it, according to the original plan, ALL of the wallets were supposed to be full nodes, so naturally there was not provided any reward only for that. Moreover! All of the nodes (wallets) were supposed to be MINERS as well! And as miners they would have gained the reward! .....
That does not sound like what Satoshi wrote. At all. Do you think so? Please, read Bitcoin whitepaper more attentively. Here is it: https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.h#L795// Nodes collect new transactions into a block, hash them into a hash tree, // and scan through nonce values to make the block's hash satisfy proof-of-work // requirements. When they solve the proof-of-work, they broadcast the block // to everyone and the block is added to the block chain. The first transaction // in the block is a special one that creates a new coin owned by the creator // of the block. That has nothing to do with whether "all nodes were supposed to be full nodes." Satoshi talked about the obvious need for lightweight wallets that didn't require the entire Merkle tree database. |
|
|
|
.....
Yes, that's right, I don't trust Trezor, and I certainly don't trust an SPV wallet no matter if it's called Electrum or anything else.
The HD wallet on Core cannot be generated through a seed, but since I don't know the details, I choose to stay under the old non HD format for now.
It's important to not get overly complicated or confused. Here's the simplest way to create perfectly safe cold storage. Load some wallet like Electrum or Core. Put some bitcoin in a single adress using this wallet. First a small amount, then a larger, then a larger still. Verify that the coin is in the blockchain at the address. Now make a backup of the wallet.dat, the seed words, the passphrases, and triple check that you have them right. Delete the wallet, the blockchain, and the browser you used to check the blockchain. You are now done. You have coin on the blockchain, and cold storage of the access methods (s). Now build another wallet for incidental purchases. |
|
|
|
..... is there a way to create a "symbiosis" of the Electrum wallet and Bitcoin Core (or something like that), so that to sign transactions safely on ANY(doesn't matter which Linux distro, or even Windows) ALWAYS offline system, and afterwards actually broadcasting it with one's own Bitcoin Core full node.
Before I started my full node I had been doing it easily, comfortably and safely with the Electrum wallet.
All this reduces to is generating transactions off line and then inputting them into a computer with a wallet such as Bitcoin Core. Hooking Electrum into one end and hooking "full node" into the other is two levels of specificity without any tangible benefit. Spendulus, I've noticed if I say the Earth is round, you will say that is not quite true. You are always looking to find faults in my words  The greatest benefit with the Electrum scheme is that the online system's wallet is "watch-only". The real wallet that can spend money never goes online. The idea is to have a full bitcoin node installed in a decent system like a linux partition that you don't use for much other than to have the full node so you lower the surface attack (and not use Electrum because it's not ideal, some consider HD wallets unsafe). Then, you would have something that's completely sealed like an airgapped laptop, and you would do the actual signature there, then you save this information in an USB or something and then relay it into the network with your full node. The problem is I dont really know how this method works. How do you make the offline transaction, then pass it on the full node linux partition safely? The way to lower attacks would be to have the "full node" NOT online all the time as a full node, which in and of itself invites attacks. Open ports and all that. As for the offline machine, those methods are well documented at least for legacy Bitcoin. But why not use a Trezor or other such hardware device? Certainly they qualify as very low hassle, high security and "off line." I don't really trust Trezor, they keep adding unnecessary cluter specially with the new Trezor T which raises surface of attack. I also don't trust the concept of "seeds" in general, or anything that could spawn all of your private keys thought a single passphrase. Can't you sign transactions offline with the Bitcoin Core wallet in an airgapped computer, then move this into another computer with another Bitcoin Core and relay it to the network? But maybe this is unnecessary and considering im not going to be running the Bitcoin Core wallet as a node 24/7 and only boot the Linux partition when I need to transact or create a new receiving address... I should be safe. I would need to encrypt the Linux partition tho, otherwise when I boot in Windows the wallet files could be accessible if my Windows partition gets hacked. So you don't trust the seeds or word list, but Electrum uses them. As does Trevor. Core has the HD flag today, but doesn't seem to have deterministic stuff implemented. This explains the overall theory. There's a link at the bottom on how to do it with Electrum. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_to_set_up_a_secure_offline_savings_wallet |
|
|
|
..... is there a way to create a "symbiosis" of the Electrum wallet and Bitcoin Core (or something like that), so that to sign transactions safely on ANY(doesn't matter which Linux distro, or even Windows) ALWAYS offline system, and afterwards actually broadcasting it with one's own Bitcoin Core full node.
Before I started my full node I had been doing it easily, comfortably and safely with the Electrum wallet.
All this reduces to is generating transactions off line and then inputting them into a computer with a wallet such as Bitcoin Core. Hooking Electrum into one end and hooking "full node" into the other is two levels of specificity without any tangible benefit. Spendulus, I've noticed if I say the Earth is round, you will say that is not quite true. You are always looking to find faults in my words The greatest benefit with the Electrum scheme is that the online system's wallet is "watch-only". The real wallet that can spend money never goes online. The idea is to have a full bitcoin node installed in a decent system like a linux partition that you don't use for much other than to have the full node so you lower the surface attack (and not use Electrum because it's not ideal, some consider HD wallets unsafe). Then, you would have something that's completely sealed like an airgapped laptop, and you would do the actual signature there, then you save this information in an USB or something and then relay it into the network with your full node. The problem is I dont really know how this method works. How do you make the offline transaction, then pass it on the full node linux partition safely? The way to lower attacks would be to have the "full node" NOT online all the time as a full node, which in and of itself invites attacks. Open ports and all that. As for the offline machine, those methods are well documented at least for legacy Bitcoin. But why not use a Trezor or other such hardware device? Certainly they qualify as very low hassle, high security and "off line." |
|
|
|
So ı have my bitcoins on Bitpay which gived me a private key. But it is online as you know and there is an alert on the bitcoin.org website about Bitpay. ( https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2017-10-09-segwit2x-safety ) I am confused. Do i have to send my coins to core wallet or it is ok to store in Bitpay? If i need to send, is there a problem with this transaction? Becouse i have it on Bitpay before 25/10. I hope someone can help me with it. Thanks. From what I read, you can get the private key from the bitpay wallet and therefore you should be able to retrieve the new coins. But this is up to the wallet service, in this case Bitpay. They could make it easy or hard. |
|
|
|
Electrum 3.0 is out and the addresses are starting with bc1 apparently. I have a hardware wallet in the other hand where SegWit is supported too but the addresses are starting with 3 instead. What are the differences and are they compatible between each other (including the old addresses). Could I receive/send without having to worry?
Didn't try but I could say that there are many persons in my contact who are using the same type of addresses that start with 3. Initially, I thought that they are multisig addresses and I asked them whether it is or not, but they didn't tell me anything except that they are using the same address for every transaction and not facing any problems using the same and it's not including mixed transactions just like we see in exchange addresses. Even I would like to know if such addresses are multisig or not? "3" is a script hash prefix. If I recall correctly encrypted paper wallets address must start with a "3" in addition to the multisig starting with a "3". |
|
|
|
... because what I heard/read online was that BTG was the only fork that doesn't have replay protection...
As i have read too that BTG has no replay protection unlike to BCH which is may be dangerous to those HODLER out there if they transfer their funds on BTG...
You both heard/read wrong or possibly outdated information. Bitcoin Gold (aka BTG) has implemented full 2way replay protection: https://bitcoingold.org/replay-protection-development/A serious problem in finding information via the likes of Google is that what is found is in no way prioritized by the most recent. |
|
|
|
..... is there a way to create a "symbiosis" of the Electrum wallet and Bitcoin Core (or something like that), so that to sign transactions safely on ANY(doesn't matter which Linux distro, or even Windows) ALWAYS offline system, and afterwards actually broadcasting it with one's own Bitcoin Core full node.
Before I started my full node I had been doing it easily, comfortably and safely with the Electrum wallet.
All this reduces to is generating transactions off line and then inputting them into a computer with a wallet such as Bitcoin Core. Hooking Electrum into one end and hooking "full node" into the other is two levels of specificity without any tangible benefit. |
|
|
|
I understand. Besides I've no mining involved with the blockchains I maintain. I do however mine with pools when it's cool enough and that's off and on now.
If the difficulty proves 2x is the Coinbase choice as Bitcoin, failing to have the higher difficulty will see it called Bitcoin2x there, if 2X, will it require any change to my miners other than where they're pointed at? Could I have one blockchain as a primary and the other as a secondary? Work is dumped when one updates choices so why not if the machine can do either or?
hard to see how a miner could do two chains, except with separate hardware with separate pools. So, the hardware for each of the forked Bitcoin chain would be different? What I had considered is like what I do with two pools currently. I change the pool address, login and password, mash Save and Apply and Bob's your Uncle you're on the other pool. But if 2x will require different hardware, e.g. Bitcoin Cash, then it wouldn't work. I maintain two blockchains but my mining is with pools and don't bother with my blockchains except as a destination for payouts. If you wanted to do two at the same time, you'd need two computers each with it's group of ASIC miners. lf one of the forked products had a different mining algorithm, like Bitcoin Gold, obviously that's a different miner. |
|
|
|
I'm familiar enough now about why the core people dislikes 2X. But, why was this accepted in the first place? Was it hidden as part of the original SegWit and the core developers did not know about it?
It wasn't really accepted. The backers of the proposal are just bored. They have money and they want Bitcoin core to die. For years there have been differences between bitcoin "industry" and "users." At least with this hostile takeover attempt, it's right out in the open. |
|
|
|
Why not read Satoshi's paper first, kind of get a feel for it all.
I'll do of course some later, yet I think people may use my database to quickly get their own fully synced full node (in case of too slow the genuine syncing, which is certainly the preferred method An excellant explanation of GPG file and package signatures is here. https://www.torproject.org/docs/verifying-signatures.html.en |
|
|
|
I understand. Besides I've no mining involved with the blockchains I maintain. I do however mine with pools when it's cool enough and that's off and on now.
If the difficulty proves 2x is the Coinbase choice as Bitcoin, failing to have the higher difficulty will see it called Bitcoin2x there, if 2X, will it require any change to my miners other than where they're pointed at? Could I have one blockchain as a primary and the other as a secondary? Work is dumped when one updates choices so why not if the machine can do either or?
You're correct, of course....almost everybody mines with pools, which means pieces of work are sent you you, and your ASICs run a bunch of calculations. I imagine that means the pool operator's software examines incoming transactions, rejects some for wrong chain, insufficient fee, whatever, accepts others and sends them to the pool members. Given that, hard to see how a miner could do two chains, except with separate hardware with separate pools. |
|
|
|
Hey guys,
I saw BTC's price goes UP to the moon these days ....
Maybe, but that rocket hasn't even dropped it's first stage boosters. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
