Ich hab dann, nachdem ich den Grund gefunden hatte, den Support nochmal gebeten, die Fehlermeldung für die, die nach mir kommen, zu verbessern, und sie haben versprochen sich darum zu kümmern.

Letzten Endes hab ich ja selbst einen Fehler gemacht, blöderweise aber wegen der irreführenden Meldung mit einem Dutzend Konvertierungsversuchen auf dem falschen Bild Zeit verdödelt...

Falls jemand das gleiche Problem hat:

Bei mir war das Foto von mir selbst mit ID card zu groß, angemeckert wurde aber das "Proof of Residence"-Bild und keines der beiden anderen. Also wenn eines der Bilder angeblich nicht die Spezifikationen erfüllt, checkt ihr am besten alle drei. Die Fehlermeldung ist leider irreführend und sollte korrekt lauten "Irgendwas an einem deiner drei Bilder ist falsch, such selber nach dem Grund".

BTW, thanks everyone for helping!

Ah! That's what happened:

In the "Add cosigner" dialog of wallet creation, I was presented three options:

• Enter cosigner key
• Enter cosigner seed
• Cosign with hardware device

Because the cosigner wallet was on my Android smartphone, I preferred the seed rather than the public key because the seed would be more convenient to type by hand. I didn't want to transfer anything electronically (which of course, thinking about it, is not dangerous at all with the public key).

Naively, I thought that from the seed the cosigner's public key and ONLY the public key would be derived. I wasn't aware that also the cosigners private key would be stored and thus cosigning would then be done in the same wallet that initiates the transaction. In other words, more or less unconsciously I assumed it wouldn't be implemented that way because that would make multisig pointless (that was my idea at least).

Wow... it's really not for newbies  ... and I still didn't leave the newbie state entirely behind me... at least I'm already smart enough to search for a better bitcoin storage than an exchange 

As a follow-up question, what's the use case then for the "Enter cosigner seed" option?

Yes, sorry for cross-posting, but I thought if it was a bug then github might be the better place to report this; if not, might be better to ask here. Anyway, the issue I opened at github was closed because of "no evidence of a bug".

So, if it's not a bug, then I'm probably doing something wrong. I just have no idea what...

Thanks for your help!

yes, there are two xprvs for x1/ and x2/, and they are different.
I have also "seed" entries, which you don't. Not sure if that matters.

Hi,

ich versuche gerade, die Tier-3 Verification zu machen. Dazu muss ich drei Bilder hochladen: ein Identity Document, ein Proof-of-residence und ein ID confirmation photo.

Leider bekomme ich beim Proof-of-residence immer die Fehlermeldung, dass das File zwischen 98KB und 3MB groß sein muss. Das ist es allerdings, die Fehlermeldung ist falsch. Auch die Auflösung ist innerhalb der Limits, und die Filename-Endung ist .jpg. Ich habe das Bild auch schon mehrfach skaliert und auf diese Weise verschiedene Dateigrößen ausprobiert, alle innerhalb der geforderten Limits. Ich habe auch versucht, das Bild nach PNG zu konvertieren. Ich habe es in Firefox und in Chrome probiert. Egal, was ich mache, nichts funktioniert. Es wird aber nur der Proof-of-residence angemeckert, die anderen beiden Bilder scheinen akzeptiert zu werden.

Was macht mich so besonders, dass es bei mir im Gegensatz zu so vielen anderen nicht funktioniert? 

Ich habe auch schon beim Support angefragt, aber die brauchen relativ lange. Und Zeit ist ja Geld 

Vielen Dank für Eure Hilfe,
villabacho

Hi,

I set up a 2-of-2 multisig wallet with Electrum on 2 devices. I then sent some BTC to this wallet's address, and it showed up on both devices, so everything looked fine.
Then I sent BTC from the first of my multisig wallet pair. After pressing the "Send" button on the "Send" tab, I would have expected that electrum asks me to co-sign it,
but instead the BTC was sent already (I confirmed that it arrived at the target address). The outgoing transaction is also seen by the second wallet of the multisig wallet pair.

I'm new to Electrum, so my question might be stupid, but at least a quick google / forum / stack exchange search didn't give me an answer.
I was pretty sure also that I did the multi-sig setup correctly (following the documentation in http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/multisig.html),
and the electrum title bar also says "default_wallet [2of2]".

It looks like the multi-signature requirement is just not effective. Do I have to turn it on explicitly after having set up my multisig wallet pair?

Thanks,
villabacho

Manipulation would mean a deceptive action, but moving walls around happens in public. Besides the psychological effects, there might even be an element of rationality behind doing this: you can suddenly change the total margin value of other margin traders, and potentially cause forced liquidation on some of them. That is, playing by the rules that everyone knows, moving walls around could sometimes be a reasonable strategy even neglecting psychology.

Sure, playing games like this causes short term price swings that do not reflect the fundamental value. But hey, the value of a commodity on a market always is a mix of its fundamental value and some "playing games" white noise - games that often are not manipulative (deceptive), but playing by the rules in some creative way.

Ok, thanks for following up!

The missing tx wasn't the first one, but rescan_bc helped insofar that the missing tx is now shown. BUT: the funny thing now is that each of the txs that were already shown previously by "show_transfers in" is now shown twice after I did rescan_bc.

The wallet was created with 0.8.8.6 iirc. Should I just make a new wallet with 0.9.1 and transfer everything there to be sure there are no inconcistencies?
I wouldn't have the transfer history though in the new wallet, which I'd like to keep.

Thanks!

Hi, I just noticed that the amounts reported by the two simplewallet commands

1) "show_transfers in"
2) "incoming_transfers"

do not sum up to the same value. The second one sums to the same value as what "balance" says (I didn't have any outgoing transfers from this wallet),
while the first one is missing one transaction with two outputs.

I'd like to use the first of the to commands as it nicely groups the outputs of each transaction and tells me the block height as well,
but if it misses transactions I'll have to stick with the second one for now.

Anything that I should know? Is the "show_transfers" command kind of experimental?

Thanks!

Shortly before the first anniversary of Monero, we celebrate the 155th anniversary of the pony express:

https://www.google.com/doodles/155th-anniversary-of-the-pony-express

Cool, thanks, I'll try it!

I understand that you don't want to publish too specific details on the bot's strategy, but it would be nice if you could publish some numbers on how much it is used (e.g. how many XMR the bot bought per week or so summed over all users)

The monero codebase is diverging from the original CN code at a fast rate:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/network

If you don't have the time to look at the many commits in that repository,
the missives or GingerAle's great digests are an excellent source of information
to answer your question.

just compare the entropy of smooth's posts to that of yours *chuckle*

I'm running it with 4GB RAM, works very well. Here's a guide that David posted on the Monero forum: https://forum.monero.cc/5/support/74/increase-swap-space-for-blockchain (applies to Linux, but I'd be surprised if you can't increase your swap space in Windows as well)

If you're a Linux user, David's recipe https://forum.monero.cc/5/support/74/increase-swap-space-for-blockchain to increase swap space works surprisingly well.
Only during startup of the bitmonerod daemon your machine will swap and be a bit unresponsive, but after that it doesn't have to access most of the blockchain, so it'll be essentially swapped out, and the physical memory footprint goes down again.

On my 4GB laptop I could very well do my day-to-day work while bitmonerod was running, except for the first 15 minutes or so. Even though the virtual memory size was close to 6GB, the real memory consumption went down to somewhere between 1 and 2 GB.

I would guess that also for Windows there must be some solution like that involving increased swap space.

At least we know now that you're not a Python 3.x script :-)

Yes, it's being worked on by the same developer still. Here's a recent thread btw: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=755057.0