The problem seems to be that you are always overwriting the "nextbet" value that is set within your "if" statements...

For instance... Look at the highlighted code below...

If balance/64 < previousbet*m1, you set "nextbet = previousbet*m1"... However the code then immediately sets "nextbet = basebet*m1" !!?!

It's the same for all your other IF blocks highlighted in the blue section... You set nextbet inside the innermost IF and then immediately overwrite the nextbet value!

Perhaps you are missing "else" statements?

Also, I'm not sure if it's by design or you just got it mixed up, but the first block in blue sets to previousbet*mX inside the IF and then overwrite with basebet, but all the other blocks set to basebet*mX inside the IF and then overwrite with previousbet.

I'm not 100% sure what your choice is actually trying to achieve so that might be what you want, buy just thought I'd mention the inconsistency

The only way to scan the Blockchain to check if addresses have been used in transactions and/or have a current balance is to have a copy of the Blockchain or use an API like blockcypher (the API service provider is then effectively maintaining and indexing the Blockchain for you)

Unless you mean, you've don't care about old blocks as the new addresses should not have been used, so old blocks don't matter. In that case,  maybe you could use an SPV wallet like Electrum and use CLI options (only available on Linux and Mac I believe, CLI doesn't work on windows) to check addresses... The Electrum servers would do the heavy lifting.

As a side note, I believe you can "buy" different levels of service with most API providers if you want to avoid rate limits

You can definitely see the addresses that the Bitcoins were sent from on the blockchain. The actual owner of the address(es) that sent the payment to B could then simply "sign a message" proving that they control the private key for that address and therefore "own" it.

It's the reason why a lot of airdrops and ICOs etc want signed messages when claiming coins/payments... It proves control/ownership of a given address.

18 words could be a BIP39 seed. I know that MultiBit HD offered 12, 18 and 24 word seeds.

When you put the seed into Electrum, click the "Options" button and tick the "BIP39 Seed" box.

After that, I would try the default "Derivation Path" first of m/44'/0'/0'... If that doesn't show any transactions, try again but use the MultiBit HD derivation path of m/0'

Just playing devil's advocate here..

That's great that you've "tested the archive"... But how can we "test" you? A "member" with 70 odd posts...

What guarantee do we have that this Blockchain is "legit"... Other than you word?

IMO, by downloading this and using it, you are potentially weakening your node, not strengthening the network.

Install Core, let it sync "naturally".

Cost? A raspberry Pi 3 is like US$35+ shipping... Then you need peripherals and power... or you end up having to swap cables for keyboards and monitors etc.

And all you ever be able to do with it is "store Bitcoins"... Otherwise you are going to be opening yourself up to attacks.

Plus, you get the added "bonus" of moving transactions backwards and forwards using USB sticks etc...

Compared with a €69 USB stick that you can just plug in and use. Honestly, if you have more than a few hundred $/€/£ worth of coins... A hardware wallet makes sense.

I don't really buy the "but how can a trust it?" argument... How can you trust the OS you put on the pi unless you audit every single line of code yourself? I'd think it would be easier to audit the code on a hardware wallet given the smaller codebase.

Given the level of paranoia within crypto, and the number of teardowns and code reviews of Trezor and Ledger... I'm comfortable they are "safe" from deliberate backdoors... The recent Trezor "exploit" obviously highlighted that this doesn't mean they don't have undiscovered flaws tho

Have also accelerated this using AntPool... You've included a relatively decent fee of 197 sats/byte, you've just been caught out by the ridiculously large spike in transaction activity...

https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-count

It's creeping up towards 90,000+ unconfirmed transactions!!?! 

And as a result, fees have spiked... There is currently 6+ blocks worth of data all paying fees greater than 200 sats/byte: https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx

Fingers crossed that either ViaBTC or AntPool hit a block soon!

Before we start with wallet recommendations... Can you please define "works"?

What wallets have you actually tried, and what problems were you having?

Again... What exactly does this mean? You had a wallet that was working but then started crashing? Or you had a wallet that was "working" but then had some missing features that were critical to your requirements?

It's like saying, "can anyone recommend a vehicle that works?"... Most people are going to recommend cars or trucks... when what you "need/want" is a vehicle that can easily transition from land to water ie. a hovercraft...

Please be more specific with what it is that you actually want from a wallet... Or the issues/errors you are experiencing that make the wallets you currently have unusable.

The short answer is: You can't.

The long answer is that the only way to move coins from one address to another (ie. Moving to a new wallet) is via an "on chain" transaction... To get a transaction confirmed, you're going to have to pay the "miner's fee".

The are ways to mitigate fees (custom fees + accelerators, timing transaction when network load is low etc).

Also note that moving your BTC to a new wallet is not technically required. It is only recommended for security purposes in case the fork client you choose is "evil" and tries to send your seed/private keys to a thief. The theory being that if your BTC has already been moved to a different wallet, they can only steal your fork coins.

No...

If you've found the right way to get the "xpub67z", (which appears to be part of your fully functional 2FA wallet), then I'd recommend creating a new standard wallet somewhere and immediately moving all your coins to it and then sorting out this mess of MultiSig/2FA that you're caught up in.

Theoretically, as long as you have the properly restored 2FA (with the xpub67z as cosign1) you should be able to create a transaction in Linux and sign it with the appropriate private key on the Mac... As the Mac wallet should have the private keys that match xpub67z!

If it still won't sign the transaction on the Mac, you may need to extract the xprv from the 2FA wallet file (not terribly difficult, but would be better for security if not required) and then create a new wallet using that xprv.

Probably just the 60,000+ unconfirmed transactions in the mempool and the resulting spike in "recommended" transaction fees

https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-count
https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx

No need to panic though... Your transaction will get confirmed eventually... It may just take a lot longer than normal (unless you paid a massive fee, or you can use RBF to bump it up, or you can do a CPFP transaction with a massive fee or you can get your transaction submitted to an accelerator)

Derivation path is only important for non Electrum (aka "BIP39") seeds...

If you have an Electrum seed... DO NOT select "BIP39 seed" from the Options.

If you have entered your Electrum seed and the "next" button is greyed out, then you have an error in your seed. Triple check all the spelling... One letter wrong will prevent the seed from working.

If you are 100% sure that you've typed in the words exactly as they're written down... Then you've written them down wrong!

Now triple check the words you've written down against the appropriate word list... Making sure you're using the "American English" spelling for words like "labor" and "color".

Also be wary of "similar" words like "then" and "them"... "rape" and "rare"... "make" and "made"... "walk" and "talk" etc...

As long as you haven't made too many errors in transcription or typing, you sound be able to figure it out.

If you have any knowledge of any addresses that this seed contains, you could also try using the seed recovery script in "btcrecover" (https://github.com/gurnec/btcrecover/blob/master/docs/Seedrecover_Quick_Start_Guide.md)

Moving the coins after the fork offers pretty much zero replay protection... In fact, moving them around is what causes you to be open to replay attacks... Especially if you're moving them to addresses you don't control, as you're creating and broadcasting the "signed" transaction needed to be able to replay the transaction on the other network!

Unless you're creating transactions specifically for the purpose of splitting coins using nlocktime or tainted with "coinbase" transaction/already split coins... You're better off just leaving everything alone until the situation has settled down and the details on replay protection and/or how to properly/safely split your coins have been announced

Generally, the "default" setting for a lot of software firewalls is "block everything" unless it's a super popular mainstream app like Outlook or Chrome etc. And some even block those apps as well.

It isn't that the app is "dodgy" or "suspect"... It's just that the firewall isn't configured properly and/or it doesn't recognise the app. You can't expect antivirus app developers to know of every single app ever made!

Honestly, firewalls implemented by antivirus apps are probably the worst...

That document was rendered obsolete for BCH (and most likely BTG) after they (BCH Devs) implemented Two-way replay protection for BCH that used a different transaction signing algorithm.

Electrum is unable to create valid BCH transactions... And will most likely be unable to generate valid BTG transactions (given they're looking at changing address prefixes and implementing other changes to provide replay protection).

So, yes... You're probably going to need to get a separate client for each coin... Or use a client that is apparently planning on supporting "everything" (currently BTC, BCH and planned support for BTG, unsure about the 2X fork) like Coinomi etc

Good luck with getting a response... You've "necro-posted" a thread from May... in 2015!!?! Created by a user that hasn't been active since 2015

It looks like you've got the Bitcoin "data" and Bitcoin "install" paths confused and set the directory paths in Armory around the wrong way...

It's trying to find the actual Bitcoin Core application installation in "D:\Bitcoin" which I suspect is where you have the Bitcoin DATA directory setup (ie. The blocks and wallet.dat etc)

Whereas, your Bitcoin application appears to be in the default "program files\Bitcoin" location.

In Electrum... Simply do the following:
1. "File" - "New/Restore"
2. Give it a new name
3. "Standard wallet"
4. "Use a hardware device"
5. Connect Ledger and start Bitcoin "app"

Electrum will read the Master PUBLIC key only from the ledger and create a "watching only" wallet...

This wallet can be opened and viewed without the Nano being connected. You can even create transactions, you just can't sign them.

If you're worried about keeping this wallet on an online PC... Remember that Electrum allows setting a wallet password and encrypting the wallet file (uses AES256 encryption)... So, even if your password file is stolen, it should be "safeish" if you use a relatively strong password... And without the private keys, at worst you'll lose some privacy.

As for your original "coin control" query, you'd need to check with Ledger support... It might be that the "minimum confirmation" setting only applies to inbound transactions and not change? If true, I'm not sure if that is by design or an oversight/bug... Worth following up though!

Huge amounts? Depends on your definition of huge. A nano s is less than €100 shipped. If you currently have more than €200 worth of crypto, it's probably worth getting a hardware wallet... At that point, you're effectively storing more than the device is worth.

Considering most people spend more than that on iPhones and Samsung Galaxy's and laptops, I don't think it's too much to consider paying for the peace of mind and convenience without sacrificing security.

Not sure a second is mandatory... But it will help with secure recovery should one be lost/stolen/damaged.

Don't even really need a second for storing alt coins... You just need to uninstall/reinstall the different apps. One seed used for all wallet apps, so wallets and Coins aren't "lost" when doing this. Just inaccessible until you reinstall the appropriate app

Note the very important Step 3.
This is the reason to use a fee greater than 10 sats/byte. So you can use the ViaBTC accelerator. They're generally mining 10+ blocks a day...

So, yes, there is a risk your transaction will take a while if the network is busy and you have to time it right to get a free slot on the accelerator, but I've never waited more than a couple of hours...

If you don't want to wait and/or are somewhat "risk averse" pay the recommended fees and stop trying to cheap out on fees...

Cheap fees+accelerator+high risk or recommended fees+low risk... Pick one combination for fast confirmation times.

I know which one I use