yes you were right, thanks
Welcome, and sorry I didn't think of it sooner.... |
|
|
|
>> tx.error
'invalid otp'
so what does it mean?
It means "invalid one-time-password" / invalid Google Auth code. Either your Google Auth secret has become corrupted, or whatever device that you have Google Auth installed on has a miscalibrated clock. Check that your device's clock matches up with the correct time to the nearest second or so (US: http://www.time.gov/, worldwide: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/), and also make sure the time zone setting in your phone is correct. |
|
|
|
>> tx = wallet.make_unsigned_transaction([('address', 'mybtcaddresshidden', 10000000)])
>> p = gui.password_dialog(); plugin.send_tx(tx); wallet.sign_transaction(tx, p); del p
Traceback (most recent call last):
NameError: name 'tx' is not defined
When you copy & paste, you can't include the new-line character at the end of the statement. In other words, after you paste, the cursor should be at the end of the line, and then you press Enter. If the cursor is at the beginning of the next line, the entire thing will be ignored for some reason, and that's what happened with the "tx =" line above, and a few others. Am I making sense? Can you try again? |
|
|
|
>> tx = wallet.mktx([('address', 'myhiddenbtcaddress', 10000000)], gui.password_dialog())
>> tx.error
Traceback (most recent call last):
NameError: name 'tx' is not defined
>>
this time I didn't get an error on the first command.
Thanks. First, upgrade to Electrum 2.2 if you haven't already. Try this longer one next (if you still have patience to  ): >> import sys
>> plugin = filter(lambda p: p.fullname()=='Two Factor Authentication', sys.modules['electrum.plugins'].plugins)[0]
>> tx = wallet.make_unsigned_transaction([('address', '1destinationBitcoinAddress', 10000000)])
>> p = gui.password_dialog(); plugin.send_tx(tx); wallet.sign_transaction(tx, p); del p
>> tx.error
>> tx.signature_count()
That lasts one should print two numbers, like "(3, 6)". If the numbers are the same, then everything's working right, and I'm not sure what to do next. If the numbers are different, continue: >> wallet.storage.get('wallet_type')
>> pluginm = sys.modules['electrum_plugins.trustedcoin']
>> plugin.send_tx(tx); r = pluginm.server.sign(plugin.get_user_id()[1], tx.as_dict()['hex'], plugin.auth_code)
>> r.keys()
>> tx.update(r['transaction'])
>> tx.signature_count()
I hope to see an error in one of these.... |
|
|
|
TypeError: 'tuple' object does not support item assignment
I don't actually have an Electrum wallet, so I'm doing some guessing and getting it wrong.... Please try this: >> tx = wallet.mktx([('address', '1destinationBitcoinAddress', 10000000)], gui.password_dialog())
>> tx.error
|
|
|
|
File "C:\Users\shaka\AppData\Local\Temp\_MEI49922\lib\transaction.py", line 645, in serialize s += int_to_hex( amount,  # amount File "C:\Users\shaka\AppData\Local\Temp\_MEI49922\lib\bitcoin.py", line 107, in int_to_hex s = hex(i)[2:].rstrip('L') TypeError: hex() argument can't be converted to hex Sorry, my mistake. The amount to spend should be in satoshis, not in BTC. Please change the 0.1 argument to 10000000, and give those two commands another try. (FYI, it won't actually send the transaction, it just tries to prepare it.) |
|
|
|
I look around how to remove trustcoin 2 factors authentication with no success
The only way to remove 2fa from a TrustedCoin wallet is to restore the wallet from the recovery seed (and when you do, 2fa is forever removed unless you create a new wallet). I cant restore the seed to a new install or portable since I lost my seed passphrase on this wallet and the option in the wallet menu is grey out. That's unfortunate.... the seed is not stored anywhere in the wallet for TrustedCoin wallets (medUSA is mistaken for this type of wallet), and so if you've lost it, there's no way to get it back. Try to run this in the Console tab, placing your destination address below where it says 1destinationBitcoinAddress, and post back the results: >> tx = wallet.mktx((('address', '1destinationBitcoinAddress', 0.1),), gui.password_dialog())
>> tx.error
(Note that if you solve this issue, you should really consider making a new wallet (a new TrustedCoin one if you like) and transferring your btc to it, and making sure you keep the seed in a safe place. Without the seed, your btc will be stranded if TrustedCoin ever decides to close their 2fa service.) |
|
|
|
Did you install Python 3 or Python 2? btcrecover requires Python 2, preferably the latest version (2.7.10 as of today).
I have Python 3.4.3. I guess I should use the one. You can install Python 2.7 alongside 3.4 (if you need Python 3 for some other reason). Just change the install directory to a different location, e.g. C:\Python2, during installation. btcrecover depends on a number of features that were removed from Python 3 (although it would benefit from certain other features added to Python 3, it was a trade-off...). |
|
|
|
BTChris, I get Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\Users\me\Desktop\btcrecover-master\btcrecover.py", line 52, in <module>
import sys, argparse, itertools, string, re, multiprocessing, signal, os, cPickle, gc, \
ImportError: No module named 'cPickle' with BTCRecover. Did you install Python 3 or Python 2? btcrecover requires Python 2, preferably the latest version (2.7.10 as of today). |
|
|
|
Doesn't this reduce the entropy of the seed?
Yes, but they compensate those lost entropy bits with other further bits of entropy How do you mean? Electrum 2.x by default starts with 136 bits of entropy, and then adds and increments a nonce until the resulting HMAC starts with 00000001 2, so the result has (slightly less than) 128 bits of entropy (since 2 8-1 out of every 2 8 potential mnemonics are discarded). Slightly less, because Electrum also discards mnemonics which are valid for Electrum 1.x wallets to avoid any confusion from restoring such a mnemonic, which removes an additional small amount of entropy. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the answer! edited to add: One other very small disadvantage with Electrum 2.x's method: it takes more effort (CPU time) to create a mnemonic, although this extra effort is small compared to the effort required to run PBKDF2 to generate the binary seed which both methods still require.
I don't undertand this part To determine if a mnemonic is valid without using a word list, Electrum 2.x takes an HMAC of it (using a hardcoded key) and looks at the first byte. In pseudocode: if hmac_sha512(key="Seed version", utf8_encoded_mnemonic_sentence)[0] ≠ 0x01:
fail("invalid checksum")
The only way Electrum can create a mnemonic whose first byte of HMAC is the byte 0x01 is by generating different mnemonics and trying each's HMAC until it finds a valid one, similar to the way vanity address generators work. This takes on average 256 tries, whereas with BIP-39 only a single mnemonic is created, and then its checksum is simply appended. In order to go from mnemonic to binary seed, 2048 HMAC-SHA512's are needed for both Electrum and BIP-39, so the effort difference is roughly 2304 for Electrum vs. 2048 for BIP-39, about 12.5% greater, not a big deal.... |
|
|
|
Thank you for making this list. I looked for something similar for quite some time, only to fail in finding it.
 Welcome. In the mnemonic-compatible tab it says there is no compatibility between breadwallet and MultiBit HD, which is not correct
Is it not being calculated correctly for you (it's a formula cell)? Are you looking in the wrong place maybe? Here's what it looks like for me:  On another note, sad to see that Electrum is pretty much incompatible with everything else...
Perhaps you already know this, but it was an intentional trade-off made by the Electrum dev: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082586.0, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=939337.msg10366268#msg10366268On the positive side, Electrum 2.x does have some xpub (watching-only) compatibility with other wallets, and it's the only wallet to have xprv compatibility with any other. |
|
|
|
btcchris: I'm happy to see this, something that kills me about multisig is that it leads to vendor lock-in at the moment. Being able to orchestrate a 2-of-2 between two different multisig web wallets is the direction I see it going.
I would guess that multisig web wallets are looking for ways to monetize their user base (integration or tie-ins with exchanges? non-free instant confirmations? advertising? time will tell...). It seems unlikely they'll remain "free" (as in no monetization) forever. If that guess is correct, a multisig web wallet would have no self-interest in permitting users to download the provider's private keys—that would allow users to move their wallets to a competitor. It also probably isn't a good idea from a security point of view, either. For another take, consider GreenAddress 2-of-2 wallets. Their security model for instant confirmations outright prohibits them from sharing their private key, lest a user be able to double-spend a UTXO which GreenAddress has placed its instant-confirmed faith behind. They already all (I certain hope?!) provide a recovery mechanism, so sharing keys between wallets isn't necessary for recovery purposes either. In short: I don't think web-based multisig providers will ever share their keys (nor should the need to), and so I doubt they have much place on this spreadsheet. Could be wrong, though.... There are however non-web-based multisig wallets, like Armory, Electrum 2.x, mSIGNA, and Copay. These certainly do have a place here, but I don't think any are yet compatible with one another (I'm not sure about Copay though, I haven't checked them out yet). Since adding them would complicate the spreadsheet and not add much new value, I'm hesitant to expend the effort at the moment.... however I think it should be done one day. (BTW I'd be happy to be wrong about their current compatibility if someone could correct me.) Btw, maybe note if the wallet sorts public keys in multi-signature addresses as there's a BIP for that now to encourage wallets to be compatible with eachother.
Agreed, BIP-67 is a good thing. |
|
|
|
Some info about the Coinomi wallet.
Thanks for spelling out all the details! I've updated the spreadsheet. If you remember to let me know once new features are released, I'll update the spreadsheet to include them. -Chris |
|
|
|
Are the file formats the same for BlackBerry?
Yes, the app is identical. That's great, thanks. I corrected both the spreadsheet and the btcrecover repo. |
|
|
|
Very interesting, thanks for that!
In the performance table, it appears only the spending PIN protection is covered. Did you measure backup passwords as well?
Side note: you should probably correct the name in the first column to "Bitcoin Wallet", because the app is available for BlackBerry as well.
Welcome! The backup password speeds are identical to MultiBit Classic, so I didn't bother listing them both. Are the file formats the same for BlackBerry? |
|
|
|
If you mostly recall your password, and if you're somewhat computer-savvy and can follow technical directions, you may want to try btcrecover which is open source and free. Otherwise, shorena's suggestion to contact a wallet recovery service seems like the best idea (you still need to mostly recall your password, though). If you need any assistance with btcrecover, please feel free to ask me, and I'll help if I can. |
|
|
|
Hello folks,
BIP 39 and Electrum works differently to generate seeds, both use lists of words to encode the seed, but the first one use the positions of every word into the list to compute the seed, instead Electrum use the hash of the words as seed.
Not quite.... They both use PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA512 to convert a mnemonic sentence to a binary seed (which becomes the extended master private key). BIP-39 uses the positions to calculate/verify the checksum, whereas Electrum uses an HMAC. Which is the best approach? Why Electrum doesn't simply follow the standard? (At least from version 2).
With BIP 39 you have to known the wordlist, with Electrum you can (could) modify it, add words and so on; or use other language lists without wait that the list will be included into the standard.
I think you just answered your own question Electrum 2.x is not tied to any particular wordlist (good), however its mnemonics are not compatible with any other wallet (bad(?)). It's a judgement call.... With BIP 39 could be easyer rescue a damaged seed, since the wordlist is know (Ok, 99% of electrum seeds uses the same list).
True, on both points. Seedrecover.py for example assumes that for Electrum seeds, the word lists which currently ship with Electrum were used. If this assumption is wrong, or if Electrum is updated and I don't notice it and don't update seedrecover, it will silently fail. Am I missing some point?
One other potential minor negative to Electrum 2.x's method: although both can be used to create weak/ill-advised brain-wallet style mnemonics, Electrum's method makes it a bit easier. For example, these are all perfectly valid (if criminally stupid) Electrum 2.x seeds; feel free to try restoring them into Electrum if you doubt it: pass666
pass789
p@ss4word
passw0rd6
pa$sword321
p4ssword44444
password456789999
edited to add: One other very small disadvantage with Electrum 2.x's method: it takes more effort (CPU time) to create a mnemonic, although this extra effort is small compared to the effort required to run PBKDF2 to generate the binary seed which both methods still require. |
|
|
|
Anyway I didn't see anything specific for this type of wallet, so I thought I would share. Hope this helps someone some day.
FWIW, btcrecover supports Bitcoin Wallet for Android. It supports searching for openssl passwords or scrypt PINs in these formats: - Bitcoin Wallet for Android v3.47+ (protobuf with or w/o a PIN, with or w/o openssl)
- Bitcoin Wallet for Android v2.3 - v3.46 key backup files (openssl starting with "# KEEP YOUR PRIV")
- Bitcoin Wallet for Android v2.24 and older key backup files (openssl starting with a WIF, same as MutliBit .key files)
how long did it take (excluding the programming)?
Slightly related if you've any interest, performance numbers comparing btcrecover (and JohnTheRipper) for various wallet formats (including the above), running on a 2nd gen. quad-core i5, are available here: http://1drv.ms/1pnpk0m |
|
|
|
Is there a space between the "#" and the "--" ? There can't be a space there... (actually I just now uploaded a fixed version that no longer minds extra spaces there so that nobody else gets tripped up with this).
i will check that but in the manual you explained that it needed a space to work. Did I? From the manual here, it says "must begin with exactly #--". Maybe there's somewhere else I missed? I guess it doesn't really matter now that it works either way, though... edit: now the problem i have is when i execute the script it says" unrecognized arguments: tokens.txt" i am doing something wrong with the token list file. does every possible password have to be in different lines?
I should have noticed that from your first response, sorry  If you want to use the btcrecover-tokens-auto.txt feature, do not use a separate tokens.txt file. Remove "--tokenlist tokens.txt" from the first line, and then take the contents of the tokens.txt file and place them inside the btcrecover-tokens-auto.txt file after the first line so that it looks something like this, all in one file: #--wallet wallet1.dat--autosave savefile
pass Pass
word Word
(which would try these passwords, where "pass" and "Pass" never appear together, "word" and Word" never appear together, but all the other combinations are tried: pass
Pass
word
wordpass
password
wordPass
Password
Word
Wordpass
passWord
WordPass
PassWord
) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
