Husna QA, you posted the link at the beginning of the line and without any space before that. The link would still work after the edit, even if you didn't use URL tags. As already said, links become unclickable and no longer works after you edit the post, if there are 2 (or any other multiples of 2) spaces before them. |
|
|
|
That's interesting. Btw, is this public knowledge and did you already know about this before you saw my thread or did you figure it out by doing your own tests?
The issue was reported more than 2 years ago by Husna QA. Is it a bug when I click on quoteI did some tests after seeing that post and concluded that if there are two spaces before a link and you edit the post, the link becomes unclickable. I made some tests again after you reported the same issue and I found out that the same thing happens when there are 4, 6, 8, ...... spaces before a link. Any idea why it only affects empty spaces before links dividable by two and not all links for example?
It's probably a bug and I have no idea what's causing that. |
|
|
|
It seems to me you missed the point of my message.
I completely got you. What I meant was, eventually, someone could have the ability to access all your seed phrases.
What you are saying is like saying there is no difference between having 1 lock or 2 locks to secure a front door. The thief can eventually break all the locks. What's the point of having 2 locks, if they all can be opened using a single key? Again, we use a multi-signature wallet, so that we eliminate any single point of failure. |
|
|
|
But this a point a failure to all multisig no matter in what way they were created either from child seeds derived from deterministic entropy or independent ones. If someone get access to seeds then kiss the relevant stash goodbye.
No. If you have a 2 of 3 multi-signature wallet and someone has access to one of three seed phrases, there is no way for the thief/hacker to steal your fund. In your proposal, there's a seed phrase that can be used to derived all seed phrases. If someone has access to that seed phrase, your fund is gone. You can set the m in the m of n multi-signature wallet to 3 or more, so that even two seed phrases are not enough to steal the fund. |
|
|
|
The major purpose of multisig approach is to have wallet which is more resistant to a potential backdoor in a single device. Thus, if you create child mnemonics from Master SEED and import each of them into different BIP39 compliant wallets further used in signing multisig transaction , such multisig wallet would serve purpose. It seems to me that such logic would work. Correct me if this logic is wrong.
We create a multi-signature wallet for two purposes. First purpose: When we want to have a wallet in which transactions can be made only if m out of n people allow that. Due to obvious reasons, there is no way to use your proposal for this purpose. Second purpose: When we want to use a wallet individually and increase our security. We use the multi-signature wallet to eliminate any single point of failure. If there's a seed phrase that can generate all required keys, there's still a single point of failure. If someone has access to the master seed, the thief can steal the fund. If the device which is used for creating the master seed is compromised, the fund will be stolen. |
|
|
|
I did not know that this is in bitcoin protocol before until I was corrected on this forum.
It may worth mentioning that there is no seed phrase in bitcoin protocol. I mean to use the same seed phrase to generate m-of-n multisig wallet. On Electrum, it is not possible as it will bring up error, which is likely because it is not secure at all.
Right. But just to be more accurate: Electrum doesn't allow two co-singers have the same master public keys. Therefore, it's possible to use a single seed phrase with different derivation paths to create a multi-signature wallet in electrum. |
|
|
|
How do you create the space for this not to work?
The links are clickable and work well in the unedited version of posts regardless of number of spaces there are before the link. The thing you are missing is that if there are 2 (or any multiple of 2) spaces before the link, it becomes unclickable after you edit the post. (That happens even if you don't make any change to the post when editing the post.) |
|
|
|
I also disagree. If you know what exactly you are doing, then there's nothing to worry about. Thus, to reconstruct MultiSig wallet your need to keep safe only one mnemonic , i.e Master SEED.
If all keys can be derived from a single seed phrase, it would defeat the purpose of a multi-signature wallet. What you are proposing is like a single signature wallet, but with bigger transaction fee. |
|
|
|
Edit 2: After writing edit 1, the second link (with two empty spaces) turned into non-clickable. So, the text that follows affects the links somehow, but not all of them.
It's not the added text that makes the link unclickable. It's the edit that makes the link unclickable. Make a post containing a link with two spaces before that. After that, click on "edit" button and save the post without making any edit. You will see that the link becomes unclickable. The same thing happens when the number of spaces before a link is a multiple of 2. 7 spaces before the link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=24.08 spaces before the link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=24.0 |
|
|
|
|
I recommend you to create a new wallet and import all the fund to that.
Your keys has been generated by blockchain.com which is close source and with importing your wallet in electrum, you didn't make it more secure.
Note that with having the same keys in different wallets, you increase the risk of getting hacked.
|
|
|
|
Public apology to @hosseinimr93 ................
That's OK DaveF. It happens. |
|
|
|
By default, electrum tries to minimize the transaction fee with the limitation that if there are multiple UTXOs in the same address, it either uses all of them or none of them.
Nope, Electrum uses random addresses to maximize your privacy if UTXOs are in different addresses that is the case with OP if I am not wrong which is the default behaviour in Electrum. You are right that electrum tries to maximize the privacy, but what do you mean by random? Let's say you have two UTXOs. One of them is worth 0.02 BTC and the other one is worth 0.03 BTC and they have received in different addresses. Now you want to spend 0.01 BTC without using coin control feature. Are you saying both of your UTXOs have the chance to be used by electrum? If so, no. That's not how electrum select UTXOs. |
|
|
|
|
You can use coin control and spend any UTXO you want.
By default, electrum tries to minimize the transaction fee with the limitation that if there are multiple UTXOs in the same address, it either uses all of them or none of them.
Let's say you have 2 UTXOs in two different addresses. One of them is worth 1 BTC and the other one is worth 2 BTC.
Whether you spend 0.5 BTC or 1.5 BTC, your transaction would include 1 input and the fee would be the same.
If you spend more than 2 BTC, electrum has to use both UTXOs.
This is the default behavior of electrum and as said, you can use coin control to select any of UTXOs you want.
|
|
|
|
It's not the first time I've visited it, I guess I've seen it mentioned on the forum, bud you have to do the calculations yourself instead of being guided by the simplest thing, which is that a website gives you the estimated fees for a quick confirmation.
Right. But it's not really difficult to use the website. I just took a screenshot of jochen-hoenicke website.  Acording to the image: There are around 143 vMB of transactions paying at least 1 sat/vbyte. There are around 125 vMB transactions paying at least 2 sat/vbyte. .. .. .. There are around 22 vMB of transaction paying at least 6 sat/vbyte. There are only 0.37 VMB of transaction paying at least 7 sat/vbyte. Considering that each block can contain up to 1 vMB of transactions, if I want my transaction to be confirmed fast, I would set the fee rate to at least 7 sat/vbyte. If I set the fee rate to less than 6 sat/vbyte, my transaction would be at least 22 vMB from the tip and considering that more and more transactions will enter the mempool, it will take a very long time until my transaction is confirmed. The image clearly shows that how increasing the fee rate from 6 sat/vbyte to 7 sat/vbyte can increase the chance of getting confirmation. |
|
|
|
I would never trust a website which has been registered only 19 days ago. Dates 19 days old
Created on 2023-08-10
Expires on 2024-08-10
Updated on 2023-08-15 If you check their website, you will see that whatever button you click on, it asks you to connect your wallet to their website. You can't even visit "About us" or "Contact Us" pages without connecting your wallet to their website. I doubt such pages exist at all. In their homepage, they claim that they have partnership with BlackRock, Mastercard, Visa, etc. It's obvious that they are lying and they are scammers. |
|
|
|
I think since on 14 August I have been struggling to have my funds confirmed and delivered to my Binance account but it couldn't delivered for the past 2 weeks plus even for the transaction to reversed back to my wallet was impossible
By default, transactions are dropped from the mempool, if they stay unconfirmed for 14 days. Nodes can have a different setting, but most of them use the default setting and your transaction should have been dropped from the mempool of most nodes after 14 days. Nodes still had your transaction in their mempool even after 14 days, because your transaction was rebroadcasted on August 27. |
|
|
|
I am being heart broken for not rewarding you for your time and energy, basically I have lost hope of this fund I never knew it would get back to me and, you help me to restore back my funds and you declined my little reward to you sir ?
SmartGold01, you never lose your bitcoin just because a transaction stays unconfirmed. An unconfirmed transaction isn't at the blockchain at all. Nodes have unconfirmed transactions in their mempool and sooner or later those unconfirmed transactions will leave their mempool. Unconfirmed transactions will be confirmed and added to the blockchain or will be dropped from the mempool due to the node reaching its maximum mempool size or staying unconfirmed for a certain period of time. |
|
|
|
Please drop here or pm me your trc20 address I will reward you with $7 usdt for your time and for teaching me something I have never thought of my life
No need. Thank you. It was my pleasure to help you. |
|
|
|
My balance is back.. So what next sir?
Right click on the local transaction and select "Remove". After that, go to "Send" tab and make your transaction again. With more fee this time. For making the new transaction, enter the address you want to send the fund to in "Pay to" field. Click on "Max" or enter the value you want to send in "Amount" field. Click on "Pay". In the new window, click on "Setting" button at top right corner of the window and check "Edit fees manually". Enter the fee rate you want to use for your transaction in "Mining fee" field. Set it to at least 8 sat/vbyte. If you want your transaction to be confirmed fast, set it to around 13 sat/vbyte. |
|
|
|
I just signed in to my Electrum wallet and still remain unconfirmed and is not in local..
Did you try connecting to other servers? Click on the green circle at bottom right corner of the window. Right click on one of the servers under "Connected nodes" and then select "Use as server". If the transaction status has changed to "Local", right click on it and select "Remove". If the transaction status is still "Unconfirmed", click on the green circle and try another server this time. Look at the following image. I created a watch-only wallet using your address on electrum. As you can see, that unconfirmed transaction is not shown and the balance is 0.002125 BTC.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
