I appreciate that you're attempting to communicate with a bitcoin node remotely,, but given the specifics of your setup, you'd probably be better off seeking assistance on a "networking" centric forum... or a "Cyberdyne Systems" related forum if there is one.

If you have a look through the wallet.dat in a normal text editor... you should be able to find various "name" fields. These will be followed by the address in plain text... here is an example of a Dogecoin wallet:


You can see the addresses start with a "D", which is a clue that it is a dogecoin wallet.dat.

So, try opening the file in a text editor and see if you can find some addresses to see what coin it is... It may not be worth your while attempting to recover the contents if it's a dead or worthless coin.


NOTE: as always, make sure you have backups of the original wallet.dat file, and only work on copies... you don't want to take the chance of accidentally corrupting the original wallet.dat!

LOL... I had exactly the same experience. Then decided to sleep on it because it was stupid o'clock... then couldn't sleep because it was bugging me... then had the genius "blank file" idea.


Actually, I think you might be right... I had the correct answer, wrong logic.

It is hard to tell because the screenshot is small, but it looks like you are trying to use the "single sig" wallet to sign the transaction... is that correct?

If so, that won't work. You can't sign the multisig from the original single sig wallet (even though it technically contains the correct private key)... you need to "recreate" the multisig (using your single sig xprv and the other 2 xpubs)... then it will recognise the transaction as being related to the wallet and allow you to sign it.


EDIT:
should mention that to fully sign the transaction, you would need to either:

a. create 2 "copies" of the Multisig... using (xprvA + xpubB + xpubC) and/or (xpubA + xprvB + xpubC) and/or (xpubA + xpubB + xprvC)... and then sign the transaction with each wallet.

or

b. create 1 copy of the multisig that includes at least 2 of the xprv's and/or the remaining xpub (xprvA + xprvB + xpubC) or (xpubA + xprvB + xprvC) or (xprvA + xpubB + xrpvC) or (xprvA + xprvB + xprvC)

This would probably yield far more clues and useful information that guessing at versions of Electrum (or what wallet it was that you were using).


The current setup with the padlock, the settings button, the "seed" icon and the "connection" orb has been around since at least 0.40, judging by the screenshot on an early version on the bitcoin wiki:


The orb simply changes colour depending on what the connection state is:
Green Orb = Connected and Synced
Blue Arrows = Connected and Syncing
Red Orb = Not connected
Blue Orb = Connected via Proxy (and synced)


There probably isn't any point.

If you can generate the first 5-10 addresses, and then import the addresses into the latest version (or just look them up on a block explorer) and there is no transaction history to be found on any of them, then it's almost guaranteed that the seed you have is for an empty wallet.

By default, the newer versions generate 20 receive addresses... and sometimes, users do "unexpected" things like select a random address from the list on the address tab rather than letting Electrum select the first "unused" address by selecting the "new address" button on the receive tab.

However, given that the early version only seems to generate a couple of addresses by default, then I doubt that you would have just randomly created 20-40 addresses and picked one of those.

That's a little annoying if they're going to ask for shipping later... I suppose that one could reasonably expect the costs to be the same as for the current shipping on the Mk3, but you never really know. Especially given that there is no firm shipping dates as yet.

I've dropped a question in their Telegram channel to seek clarification, hopefully I get a reply before the $40 discount disappears.


EDIT: they have indeed confirmed that all you are paying for is reserving a device... so you will need to pay an additional amount for shipping when the device is ready to ship.

Yeah, I agree... it's not very obvious. But I've learned to "experiment" over the years with UI elements... you never quite know what is/isn't going to work

I'm a little confused by the pre-order. It gives me the option to pay, but there doesn't seem to be any shipping costs. So, is that part of the pre-order deal that you get free shipping as well? Or are they going to come back in the future and ask for further payment for shipping?

If I try to purchase a Mk3, it gives me 3 different options (postal, Fedex or DHL)... but in the Mk4 pre-order, it skips over the shipping options straight to the payment option?

EDIT:
And sadly, it looks like the 5% off for BTC payment doesn't work with the pre-order:


Nothing subtracted and the amount of bitcoin it is asking for works out to US$109 (according to preev)

You don't need to muck around with TOR settings or opening in a "non Onion" browser or anything like that if you just want to get the TXID... simply double click on the partial TX ID shown in Trezor Suite (so that it is highlighted) and then CTRL+C (or right click and select "copy")... it will actually copy the entire TXID to the clipboard:



Granted, that doesn't give you the actual raw transaction data... but there are other ways to go about getting that (like using the full node that you're running )

The source code for the multisig-tool is available... so theoretically, it should be easy enough to either modify the code to point to a different domain that is also using the "Insight API", but is still functional or you could setup your own. (This would require a full Bitcoin Core node etc).

Alternatively, you could modify the code base to use a different API to retrieve the required info (essentially it is just generating addresses and retrieving UTXO's so it can construct a transaction to send all your coins).


In any case, you will still need your vault password to decrypt the "shared encrypted seed". Without that password, recovery will not be possible using this tool as you simply won't be able to sign the transaction with the required number of signatures.

Note that you don't get to set the fee until after you've entered the address and the amount and then clicked the "Pay" button.

Do you not see the "Fee Rate" slider when you click "Pay"?

Nice work! 

I had exactly this thought last night when I was laying in bed trying to get to sleep... "ooooo what if I just use an empty file? ", but couldn't be arsed getting out of bed to check it and eventually dozed off.

Came to test it this morning, after a nice lazy lay in... along with a nice cup of tea.

I was initially confused as to why it was just printing the same character 4 times at the end... then realised that the ;file.txt; tokens were being "counted" even though they were effectively null... and came up with the same "count back 1 additional char" strategy.

Came here to proudly post about the clever idea I had, and discovered I had already been beaten to it!   


Will definitely need to file this strategy away in the back reaches of my brain for future reference.

I mean, if you really want... I could create a wallet with a password that is unknown to you for you to practice on... hell, I could even create a few with varying levels of difficulty so you can try out different tokens and/or btcrecover functionality (typo's etc.)


Mate... as long as you have coffee and you're having fun, then enjoy! 

Yeah... otherwise, they're both very good devices for someone who just needs a "basic" hardware wallet to store a couple of different coins and doesn't want to spend huge amounts of money. They are kind of like the Toyota Corolla of hardware wallets, just reliable devices that get the job done without being too flashy or expensive.

Like I said, they're both very very similar, and I'd probably pick the Trezor if my use case was slightly different. For instance, if I was a regular trader that used multiple different coins then swapping the coin apps on the Ledger would probably get annoying after a while... but I have don't really use altcoins that often, and I can fit all the coin apps I need on the device.

I know a lot of people have had issues with the Ledger Nano X, and they had the data leak (which thankfully didn't really affect me), but my Nano S has been a solid little device that gets the job done. It's just a shame that Ledger shot themselves in both feet with a lot of their business decisions and communications (or lack thereof).

Yeah... you should send them a link to the transaction showing your deposit to the correct address and ask them to credit you for that deposit.

They really should update their systems to automatically recognise when a transaction is replaced by RBF if that is the cause of the issue

Indeed... from a technical point of view, there is simply nothing that the OP can do without assistance from TrustedCoin. There is zero chance for recovery without:
- Wallet File (+password) and 2FA Device
or
- Original Wallet Seed

There is a possibility that if they are able to get the 2FA key resent from TrustedCoin, they could potentially recover their coins with the wallet file and password they currently have. However, all instances that I have seen of that have absolutely required that you contact TrustedCoin from the same email address that was used to generate the 2FA wallet in the first place.

Sadly, this looks like it might be impossible

Try creating 10-20... and then import them all into the latest version of Electrum, if it doesn't find any transaction history, you could try creating more, but I would be about 99.9% certain that the wallet is empty and/or not from the wallet you believe you had in 2009 (given that Electrum didn't exist until 2011, but you seem to be very insistent that it did )

When you enter your seed in the latest version of Electrum, what is the "seed type" displayed as? I've tried with the test seed created by ETFbitcoin when he ran the 0.3.0 version... it shows as "Old":



What is interesting is that it didn't generate the same addresses:


vs.

Most likely either a sync error (make sure your the dot in the bottom corner of your Electrum client is green), or it's simply a case of mistaken wallet identity... that is to say, that the Electrum wallet you are looking at is not the wallet that you were using when you setup the Genesis Mining Contract or you provided an address from another wallet.

You can't delete parts of the blockchain and expect Armory to work properly. It won't work properly with a "pruned" node, and it certainly won't work if you've simply been deleting block files manually.

You absolutely need the entire blockchain data available for Armory to work properly. If you don't have enough disk space, then unfortunately Armory is not an option. Buy an external drive and suffer through the slow sync speeds that external drives generally cause, or upgrade your internal storage to at least 1TB

As far as I can tell... that isn't actually a "multi-sig" wallet... it's simply a standard bitcoin private key that has been split in a 2-of-3 Shamir Secret Sharing scheme.

Once you've decoded the final private key (ie. by downloading and running https://mycelium.com/assets/entropy/checksalt/sss.html offline), then you should be able to sweep the private key into any wallet that offers that functionality.