I was tempted to get a Digital BitBox... But as mentioned, not much in the way of altcoin support and I had some non trivial altcoin holdings when I was shopping for a hardware wallet.

Might still get one just to try it out... I like the idea of being able to backup to microSD cards

Ok, so I see the problem now... You don't actually have a wallet anywhere that has the matching private key (xprv) for the co-signer xpub (xpub67z ...UPWVv) from the Linux wallet. You've created a couple of "watching only" wallets using that xpub, but nothing with the actual xprv.

For whatever reason, your Mac (1 of 2) wallet, has a completely different xpub (xpub6Br...etc)??!?

It would appear that you are missing your original wallet on the Mac that held the correct xprv

So, I would assume that It's either been overwritten by creating a new wallet with the same name, or its in a different folder, or it's been deleted.

If you don't have the seed to generate that missing xprv that matches xpub (xpub67z ...UPWVv), then I'm afraid to say that your coins will be stuck in that Linux wallet forever.

There is no link to the source... And as far as I can tell, this website is NOT related to the official Bitcoin Gold website here: https://bitcoingold.org

Also, they say on their blog that BTG Electrum is on their TODO list... ie. It hasn't been completed. Refer: https://bitcoingold.org/replay-protection-development/

I'd be very surprised if that download was legit... Chances are high it will either steal your BTC (and BTG) and/or fill your computer with malware.

Website still not updated... All links still point to 2.9.3... and the page still says latest is V2.9.3.

Seems the binaries are on the download server here: https://download.electrum.org/3.0/

Not sure if they're final tho? #useAtYourOwnRisk

Click the "preview" button and check what the transaction data size is... You'll also be able to see how many inputs are being used for your transaction.

Transaction fees in Bitcoin are based on the data size of the transaction (measured in bytes)... Generally, the more inputs, the larger the transaction size becomes. If you've received a lot of smaller amounts, you end up needing to use more of them to send larger amounts out. More inputs = more data = more fees.

You've mentioned that it wants to use a total fee of 0.00172 BTC, but what's the fee rate?? Hover the mouse over the slider and see what it says the "BTC/kB" rate is...

The is nothing to worry about... BTG has implemented full 2way replay protection... Feel free to spend your BTC without worry. They (the BTG Devs) are also planning a fork of Electrum that will be BTG compatible.

Refer: https://bitcoingold.org/replay-protection-development/

Or people posting repetitive, barely understandable "Google Translate Output" in an effort to build up "activity" to either join the "ICO spam brigade" or farm accounts for profit.

I wish more people would, after having their issue resolved and/or receiving the information they want, click that "lock thread" link instead of running off into the sunset

Bitcoin Gold hadn't even launched a public "testnet" yet... Let alone a "mainnet"... So there isn't anything to claim: https://bitcoingold.org/replay-protection-development/

They have apparently implemented 2way replay protection though, so that's good... And it seems like they're going to release a fork of Electrum for BTG.

As for 2x, it seems like they're purposely NOT implementing 2way protection, so they don't become an altcoin, but are trying to become THE Bitcoin... The idea being that wallet and Bitcoin service providers don't need to update anything to with with 2X

As such, I think that most Bitcoin wallets will continue to work with 2x... You'll probably find that Electrum shows the different chains in the network window like ThomasV indicated Electrum would (before BCH implemented replay protection.)

By default Electrum would use the longest chain... But you could manually select the other one if you wanted.

Just curious why do you keep mentioning this whole "one hand vs two hands" thing?

It is totally possible to use the nano with one hand... I do it all the time... In fact, I've never used 2 hands to operate the nano:

Both BCH (Bitcoin Cash) and BTG (Bitcoin Gold) have "full" 2 way replay protection. You do NOT need to do anything special to "split" your coins. They have (or will in the case of BTG) be guaranteed to be split because the Blockchains are not going to be compatible... You can't broadcast a BTC transaction on BCH network and you can't broadcast a BCH transaction on BTC network (same will apply to BTG when they finally get it launched).

All you will need to claim your BCH (and/or BTG) will be the private keys your BTC were on at the time of the forks.

As such, just send your BTC wherever you want without worry. Ie. You can simply send them to your ledger wallet without any fear. You won't "lose" any coins doing this. Just be mindful of keeping your private keys secure.

Then when you want your "forkcoins" you simply import the old private keys that the BTC were on into the BCH (and/or BTG) wallet of your choice to claim your BCH (and/or BTG)

Note: BTG has NOT launched yet, so you can't claim it until the BTG "mainnet" is launched.

There isn't one.

Also, if you were using a recent version of Bitcoin-Qt, there is a good chance that pywallet won't work properly anyway, as the wallet file format was updated/changed since pywallet was last updated (late 2014!!?!).

The script chokes on a bunch of "unknown" and/or "unexpected" data fields if I remember correctly...

Python scripts and operating from the command line aren't really "non-techie"... You'll just have to read the pywallet thread and use Google

Refer: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34028.0

You're going to have to provide more information.

A better description of what your problem is for a start.

Did you delete a wallet file?
Did your computer crash?
Are you just trying to export a private key?
What operating system?
What Bitcoin wallet were you using?

Will point out the obvious and say that this is likely to be the cause of your issue regarding RPC:

It would appear that on reboot, with the cron, that bitcoind is starting up and attempting to bind the RPC stuff before some required service(s) have been initialised properly.

Maybe you need a delay, to give these services time to start up BEFORE bitcoind tries to bind RPC.

Maybe something like:
To give it a 2 minute (120 second) pause before starting bitcoind... You can always increase our reduce the delay time as required.

The"bug" most likely being that you're using a very old version of Electrum. Download and install v2.9.3 from here: https://electrum.org/#download

The older versions of Electrum often have trouble connecting to the newer Electrum servers... Plus, there have been a lot of bug fixes since 2.7.17!

Just remember... An absolute minimum of 1 confirmation... 3 is better...

6 is pretty much guaranteed, but I don't think either of you would want to sit around for an hour+ waiting for 6 confirmations!

Yes, you were. Electrum supports having multiple wallets, you can even have them open at the same time. You just can't have different address types in the same wallet.

So, just create a new "standard" wallet in Electrum (no MultiSig, no 2FA). You'll get "normal" P2PKH addresses that all start with a "1".

Send from your old wallet (with the "3" address) to one of the "1" addresses in the new wallet. You'll then be able to use the "sign message" functionality within Electrum (Tools -> sign/verify message) using your new wallet.

The amount of BTC transacted has no "direct" relationship to the transaction fee.

The only time the amount sent becomes relevant, is when the amount being sent (+fee) is greater than the largest available UTXO that the wallet can use as an input to the transaction. Then the wallet would need to include more inputs, which increases the transaction data size, which increases the fee.

Ie. Wallet (balance of 0.7) has UTXOs of 0.1, 0.2 and 0.4 and you want to send 0.5... it needs to use at least 2 of the UTXOs to complete the transaction.

Whereas if your wallet (balance of 0.7) has UTXOs of 0.6 and 0.1, and you want to send 0.5, you could do it with just 1 input.

Following this logic, with your example, if you had a wallet balance of 1000 BTC with just one UTXO, sending 0.1 or 100 BTC should theoretically use the same fee. Only 1 input used.

The short answer: Don't worry, as long as you have the private keys for your BTC address, you're fine. You'll be able to import them into forkcoins wallets to claim forkcoins. Both BCH and BTG have 2way replay protection, so "splitting" isn't an issue.


Long answer: There are not likely to be any issues regarding "replay"... As both BCH and now BTG have implemented full 2-way replay protection (https://bitcoingold.org/replay-protection-development/)

This means you do not need to "split" coins... You just need to make sure you have all the private keys for your preFork BTC addresses.

Then you simply import the private keys into the BCH (and/or BTG) wallet of your choice and you'll be able to get all the BCH (and/or BTG) that are associated with those keys.

The only reason people suggest moving your BTC (after the fork and prior to claiming the fork coins) is for security purposes. It means if your private keys get compromised during export/import due to hidden malware on your computer or a "bad" forkcoin wallet that steals your keys etc, only your fork coin is at risk as your BTC will already have been moved.

As for the coins you had on exchanges, well you're at the mercy of the exchange as to whether or not they're going to issue you the forkcoins for your BTC held there. You don't have the private keys, so technically, you didn't have any BTC either

That screenshot doesn't even show your address??!?

You'd need to go to the receive tab or "settings -> addresses"... In any case, the coins are definitely in that address. If they're not showing in your wallet, then either that address is not part of your wallet, or Blockchain.info wallet is broken... again!

Contact b.info support and ask them... Start here: https://support.blockchain.com

If you can't find the answer to your question, try here to lodge a support ticket: https://support.blockchain.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

Normally, I would have said that it depends on whether or not the private key is actually broken, or the receiving address is wrong.

But according to b.info that "12dP3YaDxBkxLRseGWxp2TPRRfys1j6CBF" address is the one that contains all the coins. So if, as MBC suggests, the private key isn't matching that address then it might be difficult to recover the coins.

It is possible that it might just be an "uncompressed" vs. "compressed" address issue. In which case, if you can dump the private key from the wallet or key file and put it into bitaddress.org, you'll be able to see which addresses it actually matches up with.

Dumping the keys might be possible... Not exactly a "one click" solution... But if you're familiar with Python and command line scripts it shouldn't be too difficult: https://github.com/HardCorePawn/multibit_recovery