Yes, I cleaned out the wallets and put everything to offline keys. Sloppy of me, I know, I should have done it a long time ago.

This was very helpful. I was able to import the correct addresses this way into Electrum. Thank you.


Yes, that or some nefarious software on my operating system. Big transactions were signed that I don't have knowledge of. I have to do forensic investigation to try to find out the culprit, but for now I'm not using Core. The transactions went first to one address, and after 6 confirmations it went to a mixer. The outgoing transactions were hidden in the GUI. Incoming transactions were also hidden, so it looked like the balance was smaller than what it really was. This way, the sudden drop in the wallet balance would not be visible.

I didn't know that. I used Electrum instead, and started with small transactions. It was probably a lot more work, but at least I got it working.

I lost quite a bit, so I don't think my fear was misguided. I do think someone had my private keys, and they got some scheme going that is quite significant. If they clean out my wallet instantly, it's too obvious, and the scheme stops. But if they just tap wallets slowly over years, it can go undiscovered for a long time.
Could it be a keylogger? Could it be that I downloaded a bad version of Core? Maybe, I've been sloppy and not done checksum after each download.
Could it be a bad random number generator? I don't know.

Thank you for your post, it was helpful. I did get the private key for an address. However, Armory didn't like the format. It complained that it was not a valid key.

When I tried importing the key in Electrum, Electrum didn't complain. However, it showed the wrong address; an address starting with 1NJ, while I wanted an address starting with 3Ph.

I then tried in Electrum console to see if the 3Ph address was mine from the private key, but it came back with false. Is there any way to import the 3Ph address into Electrum or another system?

I have a HD wallet from BitcoinCore, and I suspect that there are some ways of tapping my wallet. I don't want to sign transactions with BitcoinCore. So I would like to import private keys into Armory and sign transactions offline.

To do that I think I need a list of private keys, one for each address, because I don't think Armory takes the master seed? (And I don't know how to export the master seed either, but as long as I get the private keys for my addresses I don't need that I think.)

Is there a way for me to get the private keys for an address, for example by using the console in Bitcoin?
I would do this on an offline computer of course.
Or if anyone has any other tips to how I can control Bitcoin addresses in another tool than BitcoinCore, I would be happy about that. Or, if I can sign transactions offline and see the FULL content of each transaction before it is pushed to nodes, that would work as well. I don't care if it's Electrum, Armory, BitcoinCore or any other tool, as long as I get to see the full content of what goes out to other nodes.

I tried the rescanblockchain command after I saw the private key, it fixed the issue. Thank you again.

THANK YOU!
The balance of the relevant address still does not show up in my wallet, I don't know why. The balance shows on the block explorers, but not in my list of transactions. But I ran getaddressinfo for the relevant address in 0.19, and at least I got up "ismine": true.
So I have the private key, that's my main concern. From there it's just a little hassle to get things to work.

Thank you again, I am so relieved now.

It says "hdkeypath": "m/0' /0' /103'" . What does that mean? I thought maybe it means it's derivative 103 from the master key?

I have confirmed that bitcoin is generating totally different addresses.

I installed 0.17 and then added the wallet to the path.
I had a screenshot of 0.19 addresses, and then I generated 0.17 addresses, and they are totally different.

And I still don't have access to the 3-address with the transaction.

Same wallet.dat file, totally different addresses.
This is not a bug, but a mega-bug.

Unless there's something I have ignored...

---

Here's what I think is happening:
When generating new address, wallet uses the previous address as input for the next. So depending on when you switch from one format to the other, there there's a different address generated next.

I mean, this is so basic. It is the ONE job of the HD wallet; create the same addresses over and over, with the only input being the wallet.dat, and avoid such path dependence.

Are there any programmers who can confirm this?

Does anyone know the code for generating new addresses?

---

I have made no changes to the passphrase no.

Does anyone know what inputs the software uses to generate addresses?

Thanks for the answers. The issue is not yet resolved though.

The transaction was to a 3-address.

After your suggestion, I generate 3-addresses. Before that I generated "bc1".

I tried generating many addresses, but it does not generate the address the transaction was sent to. It's as if the HD wallet has taken a different path. I can see outgoing transactions, but not the incoming.

---

Backup:
The original HD wallet that was created, I took backup of. It was created in 2017.
I took backup of the wallet back then, and it created "1" addresses for long, but then generated "3" addresses for some time, and that's where I don't find the transaction.
It gets most of the transactions correct, but one transaction is missing. It does not generate the same address. I don't think the problem is with the folder destination, because then no transactions would show.

OS:
Linux, Ubuntu

No, I copied the wallet.dat file and took backup of that.

---

I was thinking of a path dependence?

Is it possible that each set of addresses does not start from the same seed, but that the number of "1" addresses generated has an effect on the input for the "3" addresses for example?

Maybe I should try to download version 0.17?
How can I do that on my Ubuntu?

I just had a computer crash, and when I restored the computer I upgraded from I think Bitcoin 0.17 to Bitcoin 0.19.1. The wallet was gone, so I restored an old copy of the wallet. It's an HD wallet.

When the blockchain was synced, and I put in the wallet, the latest incoming transaction was not displayed. I generated several new addresses, but none of them had the latest transaction. I suspect that it's a new format on the addresses. Is there a way for me to generate the old address format in 0.19.1, should I download 0.17, or did I made a mistake so the transaction is lost?

Any help is appreciated.

So the FAQ is now updated with this information.
Thanks again for your suggestion.

Thank you very much buwaytress

Spellers you mentioned are fixed.

1) Your arguments are good. But I still think it's perhaps a 20% chance of success, so I still will try.

2) Thank you for your honesty.

3) Noted.

4) Great point.

5) OK, thank you.

6) OK

7) Excellent suggestion. Thank you.

So I'm working on a project that could highly benefit from bitcoin / cryptos.
It's slightly different in nature and probably looks strange to many, but I would very much appreciate your opinion about it.

Can you find 5 errors here? http://mindshore.weebly.com

1) Why do you think it will fail? Very good if you can find several reasons we'll fail, but we're thankful for any number.

2) How much do you like the idea? (1-5 stars)

3) What's the most attractive part to you?

4) What are the barriers that would stop you from joining this project next month, if you wanted to join?

5) How much do you want to join if it works? (1-5 stars)

6) What parts of the content did you not like? What did you like? Is there too much text, or too little?

7) Are there other improvements we should make?