Bitcoin Core is basically the evolution of the "original" Bitcoin wallet... "Bitcoin-Qt"... https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/

This is the "full node" wallet everyone talks about and which requires the 150Gig full blockchain download etc.

I had some coins in Electrum and some in Bitcoin Core... I used ElectronCash and "Bitcoin ABC" (which is the BitcoinCash version of Bitcoin Core) to get my Bitcoin Cash...


Either way is fine... I'd probably wait until you got the ledger, then you just do one transfer of BTC to your ledger... instead of a transfer to new Electrum wallet, then a transfer to ledger... with all the fees



No... the BTC is on the blockchain... my private keys that control the addresses the BTC are attached to are in my Ledger.


Your Ledger Nano S contains a "seed", from which it generates a "xprv" - Master Private Key... and a matching "xpub" - Master Public Key. From the "xprv" you can generate all the private keys (and public keys/addresses)... from the xpub you can ONLY generate the public keys/addresses

When you connect your Ledger to Electrum (File -> New\Restore -> Standard wallet -> Use a hardware device)... it will get the "xpub" ONLY from your ledger... this allows you to create a "watching only" wallet... which will show all your coins, addresses and transactions etc... but has NO PRIVATE KEYS. So it functions exactly like a normal Electrum wallet, you just can't spend... UNLESS you create an unsigned transaction and send it to the Ledger for signing.

Same as the Ledger Chrome app (and all other wallets that can be used with Ledger)... it just gets the "xpub"... and you can see all your coins, but unless a transaction is signed and approved by using the actual hardware device, you can't spend.

Even if someone steals your Electrum "ledger" wallet... they really can't do anything with it but see how many coins you have and who you're sending them to...  because all the private keys are safely locked up in your actual hardware wallet

If using Electrum v2.9.3 use the following method:
File -> New\Restore -> Standard Wallet -> Use public or private keys -> Copy/Paste your MBC private keys, one per line


If using Electrum v3.0.2 use the following method:
File -> New\Restore -> Import Bitcoin addresses or private keys -> Copy/Paste your MBC private keys, one per line

The only reason I mention doing the restore/disable in Electrum and then opening the wallet file with ElectronCash, is that there were a few users who had issues attempting to restore the 2FA wallet in ElectronCash... they got stuck on a "please wait" screen... This didn't seem to happen with the "Restore in Electrum, Open in ElectronCash" method.

The wallet files are identical (given ElectronCash was essentially a direct copy with some edits to the transaction signing algorithm)... it's also why I recommended v2.9.3 of Electrum (https://download.electrum.org/2.9.3/)... as I think the wallet file format was modifed in v3 of Electrum.

Anyone of the block explorers which support TestNet... like blockcypher... https://live.blockcypher.com/btc-testnet/

With Bitcoin Core... you'll want to try this:

If "abandon transaction" doesn't work... you can always try -zapwallettxes... That will definitely remove it from your wallet and stop the transaction from being rebroadcast.

Note that these commands are likely to result in wallet rescanning which could involve a lot of time.

Just a thought... is it possible to see where a textcoin has gone? Can you see the address or device that has claimed it?

Unless you can convince your customers to send your larger amounts of BTC in a single transaction, no. Every payment you receive is going to be an input. There is a reason a lot of online services like gambling sites and exchanges have a "minimum deposit" value of around 0.001 or higher like 0.01.

Your other option is to try and find a payment processor who will aggregate smaller payments into a large payment to you... or do it yourself on a regular basis... every 10 transactions... collate them together, send them back to yourself with a low fee (use accelerators if they get stuck)... so you end up with a smaller number of larger value inputs.

It is the same issue that a lot of the so-called "cloud miners" are going to face soon... all these "daily payouts" of like 0.0001 are going to come back to haunt them now that BTC looks like it is going to stay $10K+ for a while.

You should really be asking why the hell the "Bitcoin ABC" devs deliberately chose to use the same default install and data directory paths as Bitcoin Core... software which had been around for 8 years! It would be like Internet Explorer installing itself to the same directories as Chrome.

This is not the fault of Bitcoin Core

Seems like I missed all the giveaways Nice work Michail...  

Seriously tho, I have to say... I think this is probably going to be one of the BEST features... being able to send coins to people via Email/IM... I'm not aware of any other systems that offer such convenience

Not sure what this is all about:

It might be that your bitcoin blocks are corrupt? You might need to shutdown Armory and start Bitcoin Core using -reindex, wait for that to finish and sync up, then delete the Armory databases and let Armory try rebuilding it's database again... If that still doesn't fix it, you might be looking at having to redo your entire blockchain

I'm not disputing that you can ATTEMPT to make a double-spend... what I'm saying is that it is NOT a trivial task... and is NOT guaranteed to work.

It isn't like you simply create a new transaction, broadcast it and your old transaction simply disappears. It just doesn't work that way.

You have NO control over the mempools of other Nodes... and which transaction they choose to keep, reject or relay to other nodes... or which nodes they choose to relay to. If ALL the other nodes on the Bitcoin network choose to ignore your new transaction, then it doesn't matter what you do unless you are mining and can include (or you have a way to get a miner to include) your new transaction in a block.

Likewise, even if say half of the nodes accept your new transaction, there is NO guarantee that a miner who receives transaction information from these nodes will include your transaction in a block before a miner that has your original transaction.

In a word... yes.


Like I said... I use my Ledger/Trezor WITH Electrum. Effectively, the Ledger/Trezor is just a "tool" for signing transactions etc. It doesn't really contain any "wallet" functionality. You still need to use a "software" wallet like the Trezor web wallet (wallet.trezor.io) or the Ledger Chrome app (the somewhat confusingly named "Ledger Bitcoin Wallet" that you use for ALL coins except ETH and ERC tokens)... OR you can use a number of desktop wallets that also work with Trezor or Ledger... like Electrum.

I do it this way because I'm used to using Electrum, I like the UI and features... like the ability to specify custom fees, freeze addresses, coin control etc. I am comfortable with it and I know how it works.


I got my Ledger Nano S and my Trezor early Late August after the Bitcoin Cash fork. So, I claimed BCH from Electrum and Bitcoin Core. I claimed BTG from Ledger and Bitcoin Core... and have helped other people claim BCH/BTG from all sorts of wallets like Electrum standard\multiSig\2FA, MultiBit Classic and MultiBit HD, and Armory



That decision is totally up to you... I am not advocating one method over the other. I am just stating that this is how *I* claimed my coins. I'm comfortable that I took adequate measures to protect my assets while claiming coins. I read all the technical notes and made sure I fully understood the process and how it worked and the best way to do it for *MY* situation.

Like I said, different people want different things... this is why wallets like Exodus (which I personally dislike a LOT) have a userbase... a lot of people just want "one click" solutions to storing and exchanging their altcoins... so they go for a multicoin wallet. I looked at Exodus and was immediately put off by lack of opensource, the inability to set fees how I wanted them and even the ability to test the backup features of the wallet unless you actually deposited money!!?!  However, for some people... it is the "greatest wallet ever made"™

So, you may not like Electrum as much as I do... you may prefer the look and feel of the Ledger chrome wallet... you may also prefer to use the Ledger Chrome as it means you can deal with all your altcoins etc... I don't really play with altcoins that much... I've accumulated a few here and there from people tipping with altcoins... but I'm essentially PRO-"Bitcoin"

For the record... these are the wallets that have Ledger Nano S integration: https://www.ledgerwallet.com/products/ledger-nano-s#integrations

My advice is to try things out. Find a solution that works for you and go with it. Don't just blindly trust the advice of "RandomStrangerHCP"™ on the internet

Ahhhh I think the "Creating v3 wallet" is your clue... I believe that the system is attempting to "upgrade" your wallet from the old legacy format, to the new v3 HD format... however because the changeover was completed in August 2016, I am guessing that B.info have since removed this code and that is why you end up logged out or stuck on that screen...

If this is indeed the case, you're just going to have to wait for b.info's notoriously slow support team to help out



You should learn to read the thread properly before commenting.

As has already been established... the OP has a 17 word "recovery phrase" from Blockchain.info that is used for "password recovery" of a b.info legacy wallet. This "recovery phrase" IS NOT BIP39 compatible. You CANNOT import it into any wallet.

Any update on this? Would be interested to see the technical details behind extracting from SegWit addresses

For anyone else who reads this thread... the OP's problem is that his firmware is out of date... and the "Output #2" is simply the "change" from the transaction... it is NOT a fee.

Updating to the latest firmware will prevent this "confirm output #2" issue.

I emailed the BitWallet support... they say the Default BitWallet Derivation path is: "m/i’/0/k"

This would equate to a Derivation Path of: m/0'/0

So in Electrum try and import your 24 word seed, click "Options", select BIP39 and then set the derivation path to m/0'/0 and see if that works.

I assume Ledger support already got you to check "browser support"? (On you Ledger... plug it in to power it up, enter PIN, select the Litecoin app... select "settings"... select "browser support"... select "No".)

Also, is your ledger being registered by Windows? Do you get the "USB connected" sounds when you enter your PIN and unlock the Ledger?

No idea... although I see no reason why the language are computer is set to should affect anything... there are plenty of russians and chinese and japanese and italians and germans and <insert other ethnicities here> all using bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies without issues... I doubt they're all using English on their computers


I never said use a 2nd computer... I didn't when claiming coins... and I haven't lost a single satoshi... I have Electrum, Bitcoin Core, BitcoinABC (Bitcoin Cash), ElectronCash, BitcoinGold Core, Byteball, Bitcore, Ledger and Trezor all on the same computer. I just took what I considered to be sensible precautions. I didn't rush, I took my time, I made sure to move my coins off the private keys before using those keys to claim the next lot of coins.

Theoretically, if you're going to be all paranoid about using a separate computer to prevent a rogue wallet from stealing other coins, you should use a separate computer for EVERY currency


Why would you delete Electrum? I use Electrum with my Ledger Nano S... I prefer to use Electrum in conjunction with a hardware wallet as I feel it offers better features than the Ledger Chrome App Wallet or Trezor wallet app.


Absolutely no idea... If they have a Bitcoin Gold wallet on an iphone then sure... you can claim using your iphone... try searching google for "bitcoin gold iphone" or "btg wallet ios" etc

First up... you don't need a huge fee for BTG... the blocks are almost empty... 5 sats/byte should be more than enough to get a confirmation in next block

You can calculate your rough transaction size as: (#inputs * 148) + (#outputs * 34) + 10

That should be fairly close to your final transaction size. So in you case, you'll have one input and should be sending to one address, so your transaction size will be:

(1 * 148) + (1 * 34) + 10 = ~192 bytes... at 5 sats/byte -> 5 * 192 = 960 sats.... or 0.00000960 BTG

The error message you are getting sounds like you are trying to broadcast a transaction that has not been signed by the minimum number of private keys required for the multiSig. Are you sure that you signed your transaction with the 2nd private key??

This is not entirely accurate. You CANNOT cancel a transaction. What you can ATTEMPT to do, is send another transaction that uses the same inputs but spends them in a different way (aka "Double Spend") and hope that the new transaction gets confirmed before the first transaction... but you can't simply make the first transaction "disappear".

There is NO guarantee that a "double spend" will be successful or even accepted by the network. Most nodes will refuse to relay a "double spend", you'll get "mempool conflict"-type errors because they'll already have your original transaction spending the inputs and will either reject or refuse to relay your second transaction.

As for being able to "cancel" a transaction in Bitcoin Core... are you referring to "Abandon Transaction"?  That does NOT cancel a transaction. All it does it remove it from your local wallet and local mempool and stops (re)broadcasting the transaction. However it does not remove the transaction from the mempools of other nodes, so there is still a chance that your transaction will get confirmed.


ONLY if the double spend gets confirmed before the original transaction. Again, there is NO guarantee that this will happen (or that the network will even accept or propagate your "double spend" transaction).