It appears to be a bug. I opened an issue here: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/1312

Edit: it's just been fixed, and should make it into the next release (after 2.3.2).

We're getting off-topic , but I must respectfully disagree.

Any online service is vulnerable to attack, and by using one you are obligated to understand and accept this risk. I agree that a local password manager which doesn't require a centralized service is probably safer, but in exchange for that safety you must give up some convenience. More importantly, I think that LastPass is the best among the various online services, and I have no trouble trusting them with all but my most sensitive passwords.

In particular, they adhere to good security best-practices (salted well-key-stretched hashed passwords), and they have been, at least in the past (and including their most recent issue), very transparent when something bad happens or when they screw up. I also find their mitigation recommendations to be reasonable (when problems do occur), and not overly sugar-coated.

Anyways, just my 2¢.

An aside: was there another hack? I was only aware of one recent one....

Just FYI, it's 13 words or less for seeds as currently generated by version 2.x (reference: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/38011/ramifications-of-creating-electrum-2-x-seeds-which-are-not-bip39/38027#38027), however that's likely to change in a future version to 12 or less.

It's an ease-of-use trade-off. Because it's unencrypted, you don't need to type in your password if all you want to do is check your balance or generate a new receive address. (Of course, all of your private keys are encrypted when you set a password.)

"Risk" is exactly the right word. As I said, once someone has a single private key, they only need to get your master public key to compromise the rest of your wallet. Your master public key is stored in you wallet file unencrypted, so it's not that hard to get.

If you're comfortable there's no way an adversary could gain access to your master public key, then you're probably safe, but it remains risky....

(Note that if you decide to take this risk and give out a single private key, there's no additional risk to giving out more private keys to the same adversary.)

Please see the post I wrote a few minutes ago just above yours....

Maybe.

Anyone who has a single private key and your master public key (from the same wallet) can compute the wallet's master private key (and therefore all of the other private keys). Keep in mind that your master public key is not encrypted in your wallet file, so gaining access to it is easier than gaining access to the encrypted master private key stored in your wallet file.

If all one has is a set of private keys from the same Electrum wallet, they cannot determine any other private keys.

Personally, I'd never give anyone any of my private keys unless they were from an isolated wallet I didn't use for any other purpose (which I'd then consider compromised for all intents and purposes).

Me too.

I also hope you've added an email address, enabled both send & receive notifications, and written down your mnemonic so that you won't have to worry about losing your funds....

+1 IMO....

I believe that the upcoming "Android M" will be fairly aggressive (for better or worse) in what it automatically backs up to the Google cloud, but as of today app data is not backed up by default.

Paper codes only work for specific services, they will not work with Electrum / TrustedCoin 2fa.

If you've lost both your 2fa app (and have no backup of it) and your seed, you very likely out of luck, sorry... 

If you think there's a possible mistake in the seed, you could give seedrecover a try: https://github.com/gurnec/btcrecover/blob/master/docs/Seedrecover_Quick_Start_Guide.md. If you're a techie (and I know you are), it's quite easy to get up and running.

I don't think BCCAPI is being supported any longer. I don't see any updates to it since late 2012.

BCCAPI was the library behind the BitcoinSpinner open source wallet, and BitcoinSpinner was discontinued in late 2013 in preference to its successor, Mycelium (which is not open source FYI).

If your interested in a Java wallet library for a new project, I'd suggest bitcoinj.

If you need help with BCCAPI, I'm not sure where the best place to ask would be (certainly not here though).

Maybe you could ask this exact same question in the Mycelium thread? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=293472.0

I'm glad you finally worked everything out!

It's possible that some of your deposits have not yet expired, even if most of your larger ones have. If there are still funds left in your old wallet, you may want to try this process again in another week or two to recover the remaining funds (if any).


It should be pretty straight-forward. On one of your devices, launch the app and choose "Create new Wallet" in the upper right corner. On your other devices (if any), click the slider at the bottom labeled "Show other logins", and use your full mnemonic (from step one) to log in.

Since the app only keeps track of the most recently used wallet, there's no need to do any wallet deleting.

FYI when you set up 2FA, I think you might need to use a separate email address, not sure though.... (And of course this goes without saying: give them an email address and enable notifications just like you did last time in case you need to do an account recovery again )

Whoever did move it didn't leave behind the typical "Moved" post, so we can't see who it was.

But yes, Theymos is very much against a hard fork. For example, he has stated that he will not allow Bitcoin XT to be listed on his bitcoin.org site unless/until the "extremely unlikely event that the vast majority of the Bitcoin economy switches to XT and there is a strong perception that XT is the true Bitcoin".

FYI BIP-39 (and Electrum 2.x) starts with a specific amount of entropy, and then derives the words from that entropy, not the other way around as you implied. Typically, this is 128, 192, or 256 bits for 12, 18, or 24-word long mnemonics.

(and of course the hashing which follows does nothing to increase that initial entropy)

The bitcoin address which appears at that link was inserted there around the same time fabiola! joined the forum. All this implies is that someone who has access to the DreamTribesband YouTube/Google account created the fabiola! account here.

This might be the person you think it is. It might be some random person who illicitly gained access to the DreamTribesband account. It might be some other individual associated with Dream Tribes.

For a specific example: it would be reasonable to assume that David Sanger-Kildare, Dream Tribes' producer, would have access to the DreamTribesband account. It turns out that he is a bitcoin enthusiast with a post to his name here on BitcoinTalk. In the video he links, we can see four of the exact same miners fabiola! happens to own (although fabiola! has pointed some of this out already).

So maybe you're talking to an attractive young woman, or maybe to an old English guy, or maybe to a script kiddie who lives in his parents' basement; I certainly don't know.


Cute....

How would it know you've never used an address?

In other words, an address should be considered "used" as soon as you give it to someone else. There's no way to know if that someone else will spend to that address right away, or at some point in the future.

Some wallets wait for a transaction to show up in the blockchain before an address is considered used, or else require that you mark it as used manually. That's OK, but it's not as safe IMO because it requires you to track your address usage manually.

What leads you to believe that Windows isn't using all 6 cores?

Not all programs are good at using multiple cores to improve their performance, so it's not surprising that some programs are benefited more by overclocking.

To check if Windows sees and is using all of your cores:

 1. Start -> type Task Manager, press Enter.
 2. If you see a More details button in the lower-left, click it.
 3. Click the Performance tab.
 4. Click CPU.
 5. Verify that "Cores" says 6, and that "Logical processors" says 12.

OK, but that's a moving target. Over time, ASICs get bigger.


In our context, I assume you mean that the revenue benefits from mining would be insufficient to compensate for their production costs, but this is also a moving target (for healthy coins on the rise, that is).

Eventually either the two meet and create a profitable market for ASIC production, or the coin dies off.

As a coin designer selecting a PoW, the only questions you have control over is how long before this happens, and how expensive are ASICs (relative to other PoW choices) when they arrive.

If only the super-rich can afford ASICs, then you'd end up with increased centralization (relative to having used a simpler PoW) when ASICs first appear, no?

Appears to be a minor bug.

Easiest solution would be to install v2.2 from here: https://download.electrum.org/electrum-2.2.dmg

As an alternative, you can open ~/.electrum/config in TextEdit, and then on the second line, insert this new line:

(just do one or the other, not both)

Fixes on the way shortly (or already here), see below....