--snip--
So if I am not misunderstood, I do NOT have to select "Spend from". In any case, the sum of the amounts relating to the addresses (8 addresses with yellow stripe) coincides with the total of the actual availability. Unfortunately, however, when I make a payment, electrum gives me a much lower MAX limit.
To answer your question, I only use electrum for small personal purchases and the only "incoming" amounts come from Exchange and at most I perform three or four transactions per month.
Thanks
Bx
You understood correctly... "Spend from" is an easy way of controlling which unspent outputs will be used. It is mainly used to protect your privacy. What do you mean with "addresses with yellow stripe". Do you mean change addresses? If this is the case, it doesn't matter if they have a "green stripe" or a "yellow stripe". Can you do the following: - go to "view", select "show coins"
- A new tab should appear: "coins".
- Go to the "coins" tab
- count the number of lines
- tell us the amount of lines you counted in the coins-tab
|
|
|
|
|
@dabs: all 3 would work: ubuntu, tails and debian.
This being said, do remember rPi uses arm architecture, so you won't be able to use the binary's available on electrum.org... This also means you'll have to make sure all those depencies are available, witch is a pain on a machine without network (i'm not saying it's impossible... I'm just saying it'll be harder to get things working and keeping your electrum version updated).
For an airgapped setup, i wouldn't be worried about BIOS virusses either...
|
|
|
|
--snip--
Sorry for the trivial question, I am a beginner level. How can I check if there is authorization?
Should I select all addresses and set "spend from"?
Thanks
Birux
Quite the opposite... By going to the address tab, or the coins-tab and selecting "spend from" or "spend" you are activating coin control. By activating coin control you'll only be using a subset of the unspent outputs to create transactions, hence you won't be able to spend the total value of your wallet. You'll know when you're using coin controll because there'll be a notice at the bottom like this one:  You didn't answer my question tough: did you use this wallet to collect faucet payments (or other micro-payments)? |
|
|
|
|
Did you collect dust? In other words: did you receive dozens (or even more) micro-payments from (for example) faucets?
The more unspent outputs you need to use as an input, the bigger the transaction becomes, the higher the fee you'll have to pay to give an incentive to the miners to add your transaction into the block they're currently trying to solve...
This is just one of the explanations, but one that occurs rather often.
|
|
|
|
--snip--
If you are too cheap to spend 60$ from your ~35.000$, then you are on your own.
--snip--
You wouldn't believe how many times i heared the "a hardware wallet is to expensive" excuse from people that are holding enough bitcoin to buy a house in the city. @OP: just realize that if you're going to cheap out, it doesn't matter what kind of advice we give you... You'll never be as safe as if you'd just spend $100 and buy a decent (new) hardware wallet from a reputed vendor. It IS possible to achieve the same kind of security (or even slightly better security) with a proper airgapped setup or a properly generated paper wallet, but those setups are hard and really unforgiving. If you don't know what you're doing, you're much better of buying a hardware wallet cause the slightest slipup in your opsec procedure will come back to haunt you. @OP: yes, you can install ubuntu on an usb stick and boot from it relatively safe... However, i would read following tutorials first: https://ubuntu.com/tutorials/how-to-verify-ubuntuhttps://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/CDIntegrityCheckThis being said, if you run ubuntu from a live usb stick, disable the network interface and don't touch your harddisks, you should be relatively safe... I mean, sure, if you're really paranoid this probably won't be enough, but for a normal person it should suffice. |
|
|
|
What do you think about this link?
--redacted--
This one is what I am using to log in. It is an https and it requires a verification code sent to my email which I used to register.
I have found the contact of Monetary Authority of Singapore. Do you think they are aware of this issues?
Thank you.
Having an ssl certificate and having a 2FA procedure means nothing at all... I can slap certbot on any server and have a valid x3 certificate in minutes... SMS's can be bought in bulk and cost fractions of a cent, sometimes the sender doesn't even have to pass KYC. Stop messing with dodgy sites, it allmost seems like you're trying to up this scam's pagerank or something... You said they asked money for the sole purpose of unlocking money they owed you... That's a scam... step away and stop posting their links... |
|
|
|
|
Well, if you completely format your harddisk, install a legal copy of your OS, install all updates from your vendor, install a legit virusscanner, install a legit firewall, download electrum from electrum.org AND check the signature of electrum... you're pretty safe.
It would be safer to run tails OS from a live disk and disable the network adapter, then restore your wallet from seed and export your xpub, then boot back into your windows OS (online) and create a watch-only wallet with the xpub... Use your offline tails live distro to sign transactions, and your online windows distro to watch the addresses and create unsigned transactions...
But to be honest, without a bit more background info, it's hard to say what is safe and what is not... Doing these steps might be really safe from a crypto point of view, but formatting your harddisk might make you lose other important data...
|
|
|
|
if gambling is legal in your country you don't have to worry no law prohibits receiving a gift, however i don't like coinbase regardless, i suggest you find another equally a reliable wallet / exchange
Fixed that for you... By the way, i wouldn't be sure about not worrying. Coinbase has your keys, they controll your fund. It doesn't matter if your did nothing wrong according to your local law, if coinbase thinks you did something wrong they can seize your money and there's not much you can do about it (from a technical point of view). @OP: move to an airgapped wallet, a properly generated paper wallet, a ledger or a trezor... Or if you don't hold a lot of BTC, go to electrum, wasabi, core, , armory, knots,... Stay away from online wallets and exchanges... |
|
|
|
Well, i'm not 100% sure if you're solving your problem in the most efficient way... But if you're set on creating and signing a transaction locally, then using an external api to broadcast it, you'll probably have to write a small script (bash, perl, python,...) There are many open source wallets which you can run as a daemon: core, electrum, btcd,... These can be used to contruct and sign transactions. Your script will have to use the json-rpc interface to achieve this. Then it'll have to connect to one of the api's that allow you to broadcast transactions... But like @LoyceV already said: why not use core to create, sign AND broadcast transactions? When you broadcast a transaction your peers don't know you're the source of said transaction... You might aswell just be broadcasting a transaction you received from another peer. If you're really worried, you can run your node over tor. I run multiple bitcoin core daemons that I can use any time to broadcast a signed transaction. This is not the issue. I need wallets to automatically send to me a signed transaction that will not be distributed just stored by a centralized system. Depending on certain scenarios the signed transaction will be distributed / broadcasted (or not) using my own node. In that case, you don't need an external api... You're already running core daemons... Just write a script to use the json-rpc interface to query unspent outputs, create an unsigned transaction, unlock your wallet, sign the transaction, save the signed transaction into a relational database. A second script can be used to retrieve signed transactions from your relational database and broadcast them using your daemon's json-rpc interface. Really, it's not as hard as it sounds... If you can't do it by yourself, i can give you a quote on a price i'd charge to write such a script... Afterwards you can shop around to see if somebody else gives you a better deal. |
|
|
|
Just showing the FIAT conversion rate should indeed not be that hard... Verifying said conversion rate (people WILL trust you with their lifesaving if they know this feature exists... If you mess up, if the exchange API gets compromised,.... they might lose hundreds of bucks and blame you) and adding some context is probably a tad bit harder. If somebody who accepted hundreds of micro-payments (for example from a faucet) wants to consolidate (or spend) during a feewar at this ATH, he/she shouldn't be supprised if he/she had to pay a couple hundred bucks in fees, if the same person spends one unspent output at a dip in both the mempool congestion and the price he should be able to get away with a couple of bucks in fee. For us, that's trivial, for a beginner it's not... So i guess this feature should come with some context... Personally, i think it would be a good idea to issue a warning to somebody that's using a feerate (in sat/vbyte) that's more than 50% above the feerate necessary to have a decent chance of getting into the next couple of blocks... I honestly tought this feature already existed, but since i usually try to cheap out on fees i've never actually seen it in action, so my memory might be playing tricks on me when i remember such a feature. |
|
|
|
$12,5 for a BIOS mod plus $19,02 for shipping a digital product trough e-mail... If you can't flash BIOS by yourself then I need from you Teamviewer ID and password to do it remotely by myself.
source: https://www.ebay.com/itm/265008071618?ul_noapp=trueI can't shake the feeling this is a ripoff... And i'd never ever give somebody i didn't know teamviewer access to any machine, let alone a pc i used to mine... |
|
|
|
I'm sorry I corrected my post.
It was a mistake while converting my currency to usd.
It's 2.5cents per kwh
That's more like it  For an S9: https://www.coinwarz.com/mining/bitcoin/calculator?h=13.50&p=1350.00&pc=0.03&pf=0.00&d=20823531150112.00000000&r=6.25000000&er=1&btcer=34366.17000000&ha=TH&hc=2407.00&hs=0&hq=1So, basically $1.8/day net profit... Take the price you'd pay for the S9 + PSU + S&H + import duty + ... and divide the sum by $1.8. You'll see the the amount of time (in days) you'd have to mine to recuperate your hardware investment. If you trust the diff to remain stable, the price not to drop and it's before the block reward halves, you might have a shot at making money... Some people also include the resell value of their hardware in this calculation... But be carefull: these ASIC's tend to break after a while... You don't have any guarantee you'll have something to resell in 6 months... |
|
|
|
Thank you. Do any of these wallets have an API to send the signed transaction to an external service? Only the signed transaction, no private keys or anything else.
Well, if they'd broadcast the private key, it would be a huuuuuge vulnerability. That being said, electrum, core, wasabi and coinb.in do allow you to broadcast signed transactions in one way or another... Electrum has a "broadcast" button, or you can use the console... It broadcasts the transaction to the node you're connected to. Wasabi has a broadcast-wizard. It broadcasts the transaction to zsnark's node over tor. Core can also broadcasts a signed transaction from the console. It broadcasts it to the other nodes it is connected to Coinb.in allows you to chose a block explorer that has an api with a function to broadcast transactions, and it has a wizard where you can past a signed transaction and broadcast @the push of a button. There are tons of block explorers that offer a free api that allows you to broadcast transactions. Some made a nice little webpage where you can past your signed transaction and broadcast it. Timelord2067 even made a list: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1938621.0 |
|
|
|
In electrum it's very easy, but in wasabi it's the easiest since they actually have a wizard to create transactions, and at the end of the wizard they just show you the transaction without broadcasting it (semantics, and personal preference ). The only thing you have to do is use the correct wizard (since there are 2 ways of creating transactions in wasabi, one broadcasts the tx automatically, the other one just shows the signed tx without broadcasting). Also, OP, bitcoin core can indeed be used to create and sign a transaction without broadcasting it... I don't know if there is a gui wizard available to do this, but you can defenatly do it from the console. Fair warning: if you use the console, things do get a bit complicated... You first create a raw, unsigned transaction, then you use a second command to sign it... The first step needs the list of unspent outputs you'll be using, and a list addresses and values that will be funded using the new unspent outputs. You'll have to calculate the fee by yourself, and make sure everything checks out before broadcasting the transaction. Not very newbie-friendly. A different option would be to download coinb.in's sourcecode and run it offline when you get to the signing-step... It guides you trough the process of creating a transaction and signing it... Be carefull with your private key tough! don't save it in an unencrypted way, and make sure you reboot your machine after the signing step. Maybe it's easyer if you tell us why you want to do this? Is it a learning experience? In that case i'd suggest using coinb.in or bitcoin core on the testnet...
|
|
|
|
To be honest, I didn't do my own research and just went from what i had seen floating around without actually looking at the transactions, so i might have mislabeled what happened (it might have been an rbf, but i can no longer find the invalid transaction so i cannot verify). I personally feel this discussion is about semantics and 0.00062063 BTC simply isn't worth starting a discussion over. I know that the blockchain is actually satoshi's sollution for the double spend problem and nobody can actually get two transaction spending the same output into the chain with the most accumulated difficulty (well, they can't get them in a stale chain either, but who cares)... For me, it was a non-issue anyways, but i'd still like to detail my rationale as to why i (mis)called this one a doublespend based on the very limited research i did on this specific occurrence. I didn't initially use any sources, but for this rationale, i've used https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Irreversible_Transactions because, let's face it, sometimes it's easier to quote a well-known source than it is to start from scratch Double-spending is the result of successfully spending some money more than once. Bitcoin users protect themselves from double spending fraud by waiting for confirmations when receiving payments on the blockchain, the transactions become more irreversible as the number of confirmations rises.
source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Irreversible_TransactionsWhile it is true one cannot get two double spending transactions in the chain with the most difficulty, to my knowledge it IS possible to have 2 unconfirmed transactions spending the same unspent output floating around in the network node's mempools. So, in reality, those two (or more) unconfirmed transaction are double (or tripple, or quadriple) spending the same unspent output. It's only when one of the two (or more) transactions ends up in a block, the other one becomes invalid... Unless there is a re-org, in which case the "invalid" transaction could possibly end up in the chain with the most difficulty and make the initially "confirmed" transaction suddenly invalid. Which i tought was happening here, hence the term "double-spending" popped up. Blockchain reorganization attack
Also called alternative history attack. This attack has a chance to work even if the merchant waits for some confirmations, but requires relatively high hashrate and risk of significant expense in wasted electricity to the attacking miner.
The attacker submits to the merchant/network a transaction which pays the merchant, while privately mining an alternative blockchain fork in which a fraudulent double-spending transaction is included instead. After waiting for n confirmations, the merchant sends the product. If the attacker happened to find more than n blocks at this point, he releases his fork and regains his coins; otherwise, he can try to continue extending his fork with the hope of being able to catch up with the network. If he never manages to do this then the attack fails, the attacker has wasted a significant amount of electricity and the payment to the merchant will not be reversed.
source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Irreversible_TransactionsI assumed this was a case of a blockchain reorganisation in which a transaction double spending the same output as a transaction that was in the other chain happened and said double spending tx ended up in the reorged chain... I mean, it was only $22 worth of BTC (at the exchange rate at that time). This is the reason why i didn't look any deeper: for god's sake, it was $22... It was clearly an accident (or in this case, somebody probably increased the fee of an rbf transaction). Yup, everything worked exactly as it should have worked (i never claimed otherwise). Yup your funds are safe. Yup, it's a big bowl of FUD... But two unconfirmed transactions can spend the same unspent output... They can not end up in the same chain, but as long as they're unconfirmed, they can be double-spending... A re-org can happen, and both the stale chain as the longest can contain a different transaction spending the same unspent output. Hence the terminology i used. |
|
|
|
|
Since you're a beginner, i wouldn't start messing around with iancoleman's tool... If you have a little bit of BTC, i'd stick with electrum, if you hold more than a couple hundred, i'd buy a ledger (or a trezor).
The only thing you have to worry about is downloading ledger from their official site and verifying the signature... Way less hassle than using iancoleman's tool (don't get me wrong, if you run his tool offline, it'll get the job done.... But if you ever want to spend those funds you'll have to use a real wallet anyways, so why not use it from the beginning?).
If you buy a leder or a trezor, the only worry you should have is buying it from their official webpage, checking the package is intact, and making sure it isn't pre-initialised... These things might look difficult, but they're really self-explanatory once you have the device laying in front of you...
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your reply, Mocacinno, I will definitely heed your warning. You said that maybe there are only one or two forks worth following up, would you care to name these please?
I'm still in two minds about selling, some days I have my doubts and start thinking I should just keep my Sats but most days I'm simply worried that a hacker will get them. I created the address in 2015 using bitaddress.org (a brainwallet) - and yes, surprisingly the funds are still there, luckily, I used a pretty complex sequence of words and symbols, which I find far easier to remember than a 24 word mnemonic plus passphrase. But I'm concerned because computers are getting more powerful, providing hackers with greater resources. It's in a legacy address as well, and I've heard that these are less secure (don't know if that's true or not).
Sure, i can name those forks... But let's be clear from the beginning: this is NOT an endorsement... Some of those forks are made by some really shady people (not going to name names here), some forks are insecure... I'm just looking at which ones would be worth your troubles of going trough the claim process and selling them on an exchange... BCH is worth little over $200/BCH... So if you have more than 0.5 BCH, it might be worth looking into... BSV is worth little over $150/BSV... So same thing, if you have >0.5 BSV, it might be worth claiming and selling them. BTG, BTC, BTX, GOD and SBTC are worth between $10 and $1.... If you own more than $100 worth of these coins, it might be ok to sell them. All the rest is <$1/coin, i wouldn't risk anything, nor spend time selling them at this point in time myself... In the (very, very, very) small chance their exchange rate would ever go upwards in the future, you still own those unspent outputs on those chains... Claiming forked coins is not time limited, as long as the coin is live, you own those unspent outputs... Before attempting to claim, read my previous post (the text in bold, red letters)! As for your second question: on a technical level, a legacy address is not less secure.... BUT, a brainwallet IS!!! So, in your case, it might actually be a good idear to move your funds to a decent wallet... It's the first step in the claim process of those forks anyways: move you funds to a new BTC wallet, and only afterwards claim the forks... Which wallet to chose from depends greatly on your situation: are you going to get out of the crypto community and sell all your assets, or are you going to keep some? How much are we talking about (don't post a number on this forum)? How long will you be holding? What's your technical level of expertise? Do you have an older pc laying around? |
|
|
|
I'm not sure if there's an off-the-shelve tool for your specific situation... tbh, i've never tried to bruteforce brainwallets  This being said, if a tool doesn't exist, it shouldn't be to hard for a programmer to write one... What you're asking isn't exactly rocket science |
|
|
|
Just to make sure the OP isn't getting any false hopes: Coding Enthusiast is using a different way of saying what i've said before: OP could brute force his passphrase if he has an idea what it might have been... If it was a completely random passphrase, it's still allmost impossible... Bruteforcing the actual private key is impossible (well, theoretically it's possible, but in reality it's not) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
