Not as far as I am aware. You simply have to restart Tails, which will give you a whole new circuit each time.

It does mention this briefly at the following links:


So yeah, OP should restart Tails in between each seed phrase he is restoring. But as pointed out above, while this may be very private it isn't very secure since he is restoring seed phrases to an internet enabled device.

Sure you can. Just use the xpub to derive addresses until you find the prefix you want.

You can only have 2³¹ - 1 unhardened indexes at each level in the derivation path, but your derivation path can have a total of 255 additional levels after your master key m. That gives you a total of (2³¹ - 1)²⁵⁵ possible derivation paths which do not use any hardened derivations, which is still far in excess of the total number of valid public keys.

It actually just states "Invalid mnemonic" and will not let you proceed, unless you happened to create an Electrum seed phrase which is also a valid BIP39 seed phrase (this is no longer possible on newer versions of Electrum).

Since OP created his seed phrase with Electrum, then playing around with different derivation paths is a futile exercise. Standard Electrum seed phrases always restore to m for legacy accounts and m/0' for segwit accounts.

---

If you are sure your seed phrase was generated in Electrum, then the only remaining possibility is that you have either made a mistake writing it down or you are making a mistake typing it back in. I would suggest using the software btcrecover to attempt to brute force where you mistake is - https://btcrecover.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

He regularly recommends people poison themselves with substances which are known to be toxic and potentially fatal.

I suspect that in the vast majority of cases where the miner has not claimed the full amount it was by mistake rather than by choice. Much like when we see those transactions paying fees of several bitcoin, where people have tried to create a transaction manually to send a trivial sum, forgetting that anything not accounted for in the outputs or sent to a change address is automatically included in the fee. There were lots of cases back in 2012 where miners claimed the full 50 BTC block reward, but neglected to claim any of the additional fees they were due, presumably because of a bug with their mining software.

I think the distinction here between privacy and anonymity is largely semantic rather than practical. If I have an address which is publicly linked to my real life identity, such as through a Twitter profile or being shared on social media, and I have another address in the same wallet which I am using to do something I would rather not be linked to my real identity, such as donating to a specific political group or charity, then those addresses can absolutely be linked by any Electrum server I connect to since the same wallet is querying them both at the same time. It doesn't matter if I do so through Tor or not, since the IP address here isn't needed to link the second address to my real identity. I have neither privacy nor anonymity. (And yes, I appreciate it could be a case of a dummy watch only wallet with addresses from different people designed solely to confuse any spying Electrum servers, but hardly anyone does things like that.)

If you want to keep two addresses separated on Electrum while not using your own full node, then they should be in different wallets connected to different servers via different Tor circuits.

If you are looking for anonymity as OP mentioned, then this is not a good idea at all. Simply by having all your addresses in the same Electrum wallet means that your Electrum client will query the same server for the balance of all your addresses at the same time. Even if you use coin control to make sure your addresses are never linked on the blockchain, any Electrum server you connect to will be able to link all your addresses together, and potentially also link them all back to your IP address if you are not using Tor. The only way it would be safe to do this is if your Electrum client is only ever pointed at your own full node.

But I, on the other hand, would argue that using Windows is absolutely not acceptable, that Windows is insecure, that Windows is spyware, that Windows has enormous amounts of unnecessary and non-removable bloatware filled with God-knows-what code, and so on. To me, none of the things I mentioned are acceptable. To you, using Windows is acceptable. To someone else, turning off rather than removing connectivity hardware might be acceptable. And so enters the gray area of what constitutes an airgapped wallet. Either commit to doing it all and doing it properly, or opt for a hardware wallet.

It's like the old saying - Good, Cheap, Fast, pick two. In this case we would replace fast with easy. Hardware wallets are good and easy, but not cheap. Airgapped cold storage (provided you have a spare device you can use) are good and cheap, but not easy. Mobile wallets, web wallets, etc. are cheap and easy, but are not good.

Because there is no requirement for coinbase outputs to spend the maximum allowed amount of bitcoin, or indeed, any bitcoin at all.

Irretrievably lost.

Yes, that 12.5 BTC is lost forever, but it is definitely not the only time bitcoin have been lost in this manner. As another example, block 526,591 only generated 6.25 BTC instead of the 12.5 BTC allowed.

Sure, but then we start getting in to gray areas. Linux is recommended, but Windows will do. Removing connectivity hardware is recommended, but turning it off will do. Formatting the hard drive first is recommended, but not doing it will be OK since you will be offline anyway. Encrypting your wallet is recommended, but no one will have access to it anyway so it's not necessary. And so on. Soon enough, we are left with someone just turning off their WiFi and thinking they have a safe airgapped wallet.

The problem with airgapped wallets is exactly this - you can seriously mess up if you cut corners or don't really understand what you are doing. This is much harder to do with a hardware wallet. I would say if you can't commit (or don't have the knowledge) to set up an airgapped wallet properly, then you would be safer using a hardware wallet instead of settling for a sub-optimal airgapped set up.

A link to Wikipedia? Cool. I'll keep waiting.

The sum of the outputs of the coinbase transaction will be required to be less than or equal to the sum of the fees. There is no requirement for a miner to claim the full block subsidy or the full amount of fees - they are only prevented from claiming more than the limit, but not from claiming less. There have been a number of bitcoin permanently lost through miners claiming less than they were allowed to. For example, block 501,726, where the miner failed to claim any of the 12.5 BTC block reward.

You could try addressing while all your "sources" are one conspiracy nut quoting another conspiracy nut, and are completely devoid of any studies, trials, data, evidence, or facts.

I'm still waiting:

No rebuttal so ad hominem attacks. How very scientific of you.

I think you do, or at least, you do if you want to do it properly.

Most people would know how to turn off their WiFi or put their laptop in to airplane mode. However, WiFi cards can still leak some data even when turned off by the OS, and there is always the chance that you (or something in your OS) turns it back on by mistake. So to be sure, you should remove your WiFi card. How many people would be able to open their laptop and even identify the WiFi card, let alone safely remove it, especially if it is built in to the motherboard? Having a guide which says "Remove your WiFi card" is fine, but if someone has never before opened up a computer to look inside (which is the majority of the population) then that isn't really helpful for them. The same goes for other steps, such as installing Linux. A lot of people have never heard of Linux or even really know what an operating system is.

Step by step instructions are rarely detailed enough for the complete newbie, and if there is the slightest error or issue, then they are completely stuck. You don't need any programming knowledge as suggested above, but you do need a certain level of familiarity with computers and hardware.

Zedpastin wasn't talking about generating the same 12 words, which would obviously be 1 in 2¹²⁸, but rather generating a seed phrase made up of the same word 12 times. Since there are 2048 words, then there are 2048 possible seed phrases which are made up of the same word 12 times. Only 1 in 16 of these will be valid (give or take) due to the checksum, so that leaves 128 out of 2¹²⁸, which is the same as 1 in 2¹²¹.

I know you've never actually read a scientific paper, but if you ever do you'll note 100+ references at the end to trials, meta-analyses, studies, systematic reviews, you know - actual evidence. Not just one conspiracy nut quoting another conspiracy nut, as if two people both saying the same unsubstantiated nonsense somehow makes it real.

Ahh yes, Twitter and Fox news, those two bastions of facts and evidence. 

You throw in a handful of links to medical journals to make it look like you maybe have some idea of what you are talking about, knowing that most other anti-vax morons won't click on a single one and definitely won't read them, but the links you provide don't prove a single one of your claims. This one, for example - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3370379/ - just talks about myocarditis and does not mention COVID or COVID vaccines even once. This one - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.03.21263103v1.full.pdf - just says that if you get COVID once you probably won't get it again. You know, like a bunch of other diseases.

Your bullshit is very transparent.

Your source material is bitchute, which just proves my point about not understanding basic scientific principles.

You've arrived at the crux of the matter.

They choose a conclusion, then search desperately for anyone who says anything which supports that conclusion (regardless of how plainly moronic that statement is), meanwhile ignoring the mountains of evidence and 99.9% of doctors and scientists who disagree with them because they are all part of bIg PhArMa. No amount of evidence will ever change their mind, because they fundamentally do not understand even the most basic principles of how science works.