Thank you for your interest.
But I can't buy this wallet
The balance comes out as zero on the blockchain I know.
I'm sorry that I couldn't disclose the blockchain address that I can check.
Good luck...
It's pretty obvious you want to buy an empty bitcoin wallets private key so you can steal the coins from forks based on BTC where there is still a balance left. Update your buying criteria to reflect that instead of asking for something and hiding what you really want! Update: Added a distrust to this scam user Note for non scammers: I am aware "my" private key is a well known leaked one, I just wanted to see what this scammer was trying to do. |
|
|
|
I can get you the private key to: 1HZwkjkeaoZfTSaJxDw6aKkxp45agDiEzN First funded: 9/15/2012 Last used: 4/1/2024 Total sent/received: 59.99993601 BTC Address: 1HZwkjkeaoZfTSaJxDw6aKkxp45agDiEzN
Message: This private key is known by TheArchaeologist on April 5th, 2024
Signature: G7l1o0On63Audwv8ZbFTrc2F2ooEzTOx12s2kel4zafQFi9gyufUX9DnAw7wIbTM8HLIWj4L5EN3plypBtNRpT4=
|
|
|
|
Please message me if you have an empty wallet that you deposited bitcoin after 2011 and recently transferred
You don't need any btc.bch, bcv, btg balance at all.
I need a private key because of the new hardpog coin.
1btc = $10
sample address
1DDYt8kJE1JBa2kQN1R921weJGbCnWcgG4
200bit ==> i want buy $2000
I can get you the private key to: 1HZwkjkeaoZfTSaJxDw6aKkxp45agDiEzN First funded: 9/15/2012 Last used: 4/1/2024 Total sent/received: 59.99993601 BTC Address: 1HZwkjkeaoZfTSaJxDw6aKkxp45agDiEzN
Message: This private key is known by TheArchaeologist on April 5th, 2024
Signature: G7l1o0On63Audwv8ZbFTrc2F2ooEzTOx12s2kel4zafQFi9gyufUX9DnAw7wIbTM8HLIWj4L5EN3plypBtNRpT4=
|
|
|
|
i know [:-1] this method use remove the last digit,but i need mathematically steps like + - * / why i am post this topic  mathbehind crack ecdsa  example input: 9cbdfb599ed010 0ce5efdaccf6808 01cbdfb599ed010 0397bf6b33da020 0i need output: 9cbdfb599ed010 ce5efdaccf6808 1cbdfb599ed010 397bf6b33da020 solve the math write here... :Note only last digits remove #mybadandgoodenglish Just divide by 10: 9cbdfb599ed010 0 / 10 = 9cbdfb599ed010 ce5efdaccf6808 0 / 10 = ce5efdaccf6808 etc. |
|
|
|
Hi LoyceV since you already have some useful data, did you believe that you can publish some list like "Public keys with balance".
Not OP, but are you looking for something like this: address balance pubkey
12higDjoCCNXSA95xZMWUdPvXNmkAduhWv 0.00010000 044d05240cfbd8a2786eda9dadd520c1609b8593ff8641018d57703d02ba687cf2f187f0cee2221c3afb1b5ff7888caced2423916b61444666ca1216f26181398c
17afxUJouat3fkaaQ9tZrDThxdkXGL4WrM 0.00010000 0428ae82b094ace0e2753b55ade744f65580effe4be3940601cd5a6c51d5af7c5a3747741abcfebf48085010fc7983107da4fbc3dff8b72401779fcfbaa05bd5d3
1PhUXucRd8FzQved2KGK3g1eKfTHPGjgFu 50.00673279 04a2b3590604543737ef6a5cbdf438e44ef66d584efab1565759e1bafc72462d6b5f547466e4cbd610f2dcd65f2c0d6a419cf0170c15d7e783edf7d0247fa74f3b
1DNML6RyHdsqRS7te5SpCkMGoYEkVJU6wD 0.00000890 04ab6c62bcdc3ee4a5ded010007e48c6404347997624af22582147bf4ca7f2b7c3b725d1278f19c87f85652adcc8a198104c233353683bc6c2d1f8149c53c3782b
15J5MZxBkbo88hfHbY96UEDdWWtTJKTBgj 0.00000890 04aeb58ff7e7109ad1d2e8f4f574c733833a8c9c394082cec0f691d63a352ce56d3a1ac62473b62b70b238495808b8c904efff6c02ae9fc97e442f153404b64af2
1EGDbCKGbizMFgwjn4WNHTvAthsvrsixDv 1.00000000 042dfb87e38d92220d20fc181d358dca0f3677f2eabf64425b355deda0ae34a057127b369a80dcb69fb652ddbcb5e91b1c1bd43634be8c00fd1f0c74d3c6b9b8d6
1PyNKEyqtDFB4HBG8ueDVxdPZfgwC6gAqw 0.00001000 046bfe6fa9d6ab1383378cb1f30fb913e9bb18bc7f8cc81aadd2ac70bb5177d4dd73cd7a59373d58738602ba850622e1f470aa8ea45972673bd06b8bdc119f7ef4
1JXFXUBGs2ZtEDAQMdZ3tkCKo38nT2XSEp 0.00001000 04044ee968e705cba538788fd49bdd95ec4b8d96d6fe52c3c0788c4289d6c6ec3305cb603ac45462ffd6093aaddebd0f1201945165d8b0a2b9bb9a70e392aa4936
18FAoviy2XGWRBvDaA1QSUrKuPH2ST8pA2 2.38000000 04d21667e5ab6f05072fec925c9f598af3fcf40aafd31dd89b8994a63f516a7426da3cceb9ff437678dcd02abd8451b51d61075c58f0cc7e072fa71dd8f74b603c
14ccB2QFEKZnd1gLUtgr7vWg6JrMeXaQXK 0.00001000 045551caaca4caa1535fdea7e3dd6646720869e5c0187077aecfeafe60741aa61a35b013eb0f55081e30fc1b3b03bbc39e2430b31073574c39dbe60d122edb8a1b
12u6hecWRHEPceLYZ9yhubZvhgKYuLGf1J 151.00001435 046bd20f8fe764c28f5fe1c4eba69d26e0af42bf1853213d593a5098e075344d6fdc998e9c1e469cad7d799a0891f3bc47ae1f6a1eb6caabd62890a7994f4b6d5f
1XPTgDRhN8RFnzniWCddobD9iKZatrvH4 0.00015529 0434417dd8d89deaf0f6481c2c160d6de0921624ef7b956f38eef9ed4a64e36877be84b77cdee5a8d92b7d93694f89c3011bf1cbdf4fd7d8ca13b58a7bb4ab0804
1BiDsroMqEwDhBmzkKLvCSAddGn8QGmLFf 0.00001000 040bc7100ef382290a250654c0b77841ea844b5ad09843f55bf79fe6bb3a320f178a899280cf6f0a92befe316d922bffc3e8d6f93a8f1b788ac18c7ee44cf2f15a
1JCjFJckVFvN5EFs7oUmzKjPVLq8XyPiwc 10.00000000 04200af342e1bb4b50ada09233ebdca598446d4c7c3c92c915b3ec4fa36ef9c81937a204fe1909509d5b5b429ab00e378a3a1bf7e20e783974e0b1d5263c3bd38b
15Z5YJaaNSxeynvr6uW6jQZLwq3n1Hu6RX 7941.06426123 047a51392bace353f4c3788c9c090ef4f635ec211159ec3b9f1bb7da7679517e126e98e0012bcb4d2b023c479afaaa1ad703ea1b24e1910e2cdad38744ba7aab8a
1JiZxcwHpivk35obqHUYbdNoE1BA8ty5TB 5.00000000 04cb9648aa9f91795d111ded927f1a175c44a53537c817da4616eb071a9ec83a2670430628d20e70ee7a45b23494fc217d1020784d4d56b2f932754d79e4c3b808
|
|
|
|
Take the public key, SHA256 it, RIPEMD-160 it, then add 0x00 to the start. Call this pubhash_prefix. SHA256 this twice, take the first 4 bytes, and then append these 4 bytes to pubhash_prefix. Convert to base58 and you have your address.
The same thing as described by o_e_l_e_o, this time in python code: bin = binascii.unhexlify(public_key)
#Step 1: Create hash of public key:
hash_of_public_key = hashlib.sha256(bin).digest()
#Step 2: Calculate RIPEMD-160 of the public key:
r = hashlib.new('ripemd160')
r.update(hash_of_public_key)
r.hexdigest()
#Step 3: Adding network bytes (00) to RIPEMD-160
networked = binascii.unhexlify('00'+r.hexdigest())
#Step 4: Double hash the networked RIPEMD-160
sha4a = hashlib.sha256(networked).digest()
sha4b = hashlib.sha256(sha4a).digest()
#Step 5: Get the first four bytes of sha4b:
four_bytes = str(binascii.hexlify(sha4b).decode('utf-8'))[:8]
#Step 6: Adding the four_bytes to the end the RIPEMD-160 from step 3:
address_hex = str(binascii.hexlify(networked).decode('utf-8')) + four_bytes
#Step 7: Convert the hex_address using base58 to bitcoin adres
address_base58 = base58.b58encode(binascii.unhexlify(address_hex))
|
|
|
|
|
Transaction is included in block 712312, so problem solved by now.
|
|
|
|
I do not remember how it works, but maybe Bitcoin Core is not synced, therefore newly created transactions were not transmitted. The question is at which stage of synchronisation it is. And will it publish transactions when become synchronised?
The transfer won't be submitted to the network until the local client is up to date. Up to this point, the transaction is shown in the local wallet but not in the global network / mempool. So yes it will transmit the transaction after becoming fully synchronized if all inputs needed for the transaction are unspent. |
|
|
|
Your question number 2.
How do I find the information to answer this question. Is that information in my Bitcoin Core client?
bitcoin-cli listreceivedbyaddress
But question 1 is more important |
|
|
|
Status: 0/ubekreftet, ikke i minnepool
Dato: 02.12.2021 14:47
Til: 1NSYBUdbgxbaNCwHa2fuT8bMRTLFAVgCp2
Debet: -0.00026658 BTC
Transaksjonsgebyr: -0.00003342 BTC
Nettobeløp: -0.00030000 BTC
Transaksjons-ID: 0c43ac893141cc633453834b396b3ed29e6daf04e9c750c75c353a7e3f091100
Total transaksjonsstørrelse: 257 bytes
Virtuell transaksjonsstørrelse: 257 bytes
Utdatainndeks: 1
Status: 0/ubekreftet, ikke i minnepool
Dato: 02.12.2021 14:40
Til: 1NSYBUdbgxbaNCwHa2fuT8bMRTLFAVgCp2
Debet: -0.00097500 BTC
Transaksjonsgebyr: -0.00002500 BTC
Nettobeløp: -0.00100000 BTC
Transaksjons-ID: 87ad3fe5bbb440233868eec26a8b4db9c70c57d9c70ce22e0f1c024929426d20
Total transaksjonsstørrelse: 257 bytes
Virtuell transaksjonsstørrelse: 257 bytes
Utdatainndeks: 0
Your new transactions haven't been broadcast yet, that's why your transaction don't show up in any blockexplorer. The fact your balance is going down is likely caused by syncing of new blocks in which past transactions were found spending. If you do: bitcoin-cli getblockcount
What is the height reported? And question 2: Is this the address from your wallet with the X.98 balance reported: 1EgTnkiu3xYbFM4i7DaEmmmZDiiiYT6fXM
|
|
|
|
I then first make one small test sending to my safe Ledger wallet address (legacy wallet) of 0.0001 bitcoin, where transaction fees are to be withdrawn from amount.
First of all, there is a difference between your original post where you claim to have send 0.0001 versus the logs: Nettobeløp: -0.00100000 BTC
But anyway, based on the logs you posted the two outgoing transactios have a rather small fee attached to them. So fees are not the problem for your "missing BTC". If anything they might be the reason for your transactions still not being confirmed, so not showing up as received on your ledger address. Might I have been hacked somehow (im on a pretty new MacBook Pro)
Really hard to say based on what you shared this far. Any reason you removed the address and transaction-id from your logs you later posted? The problem for "disapearing" BTC is not in the transactions from your log. |
|
|
|
1-how many addresses are there with this characteristic?
I took a look at all p2pkh addresses (so the ones starting with a '1'). I found over 1.5 million addresses with the characteristics you described which have been funded at least once: 1AAaaCnWptsdikfLwQKpPAkVvGWwXmcTwH
1AAAakfPsjEpmfMBFzaQHeoGTNDUttSYHB
1AAaALjAYkZxeZfGfGbMowNFgjPgqmjept
1AAaaNhHmHbZvzUzwzwhmeUXviaTAMqDXM
1AAaAqCudRbWniNHeRejejEZszisfELBEd
......
<snip 1.5+ million addresses>
.....
1QLZXYbzXPxpenwCYsbccudSSrHKhKmSnf
1QLZYeftHVptyyjjDVZwfsLvJamRkMhsoS
1QLZyPXavHLGMNZRZWEVcBWjRVRvPeLiGb
1QLZywqbiQobZMpWNPXthyYJtNgfcLRRSV
1QLZzaiyVLvZUfimDNwfJNRxPQMJoLmhbb
1QLZZFCFTZqnnZEorbSjFvbpQefgSpBijg
1QLZZpbdeXkbBSizdymoiPxUxPtHQsCmaW
Update: also checked all the p2sh addresses (so the ones starting with a '3'). There were almost 800,000 addresses matching your characteristics which have been funded at least once: 3AAAaXsDdNutaLfEPDbNinkctrdtCKaDtw
3AaABBUNLZQBmsvrcuTexhQJYewpEJTwUb
3AaAbtSNECuyZMVwuwyNgAyETWHMxjZsKW
3AAACCpbjcLTVzhHQhpqQmNhYGYyMGpPGc
3AaacfMzHxFZWjeySuHviKBKfEgvkLMeSJ
......
<snip around 800k addresses>
.....
3QZzxzQGQpRfEBjuxTVTdRVzTLfSRodLih
3QzzynSAYfnCWCXjadBAnRKsnfZVTqGbWo
3QzzYNwxFLVsrpFRSdaZeydDewpMCvxaWJ
3QzZywBqiqyxnLhxHJjutYBoCmKLiZXfDK
3QZZyZrBGnvRCZDhpmXzaBzbRmCSghmxbS
So the same conclusion as I had generating random addresses: they are not that special! There around 2.3 million (!) addresses matching your characteristics already in use. |
|
|
|
You make it sound like you found some very special addresses, however as odolvlobo already pointed out this is something that is not rare at all. I generated 10000 addresses at random, which resulted in 28 addresses without any number in it (except for the leading 1 ofcourse). So about 1 in 357 addresses generated: 1PEABXGPwwmHzLuaMscUbmtbLiLyEEcvok-> L25Nv43gMQ8AkHEugnyaPsgARw6Bojd2bFaqjAqBWaXfCKPpXHM6
1LAYdRcVkKEDcoqhjaLsPFGsPgoAQrdoVV-> Kz9mM8JVtGfZTavha7K7qctWygZZL4cEPqR9tTcKCmbK6nD6tfGy
1PuBftvmFVKqLxpwmruGhhNGRaoZjnWkKL-> L1nPpJYvSHbWmCUpu2TpTT9onNtgt1YZPLDouwgkkJaMF1M9JEm5
1MgjEYTAsCSTQazpeSpcQHaJnaaTbFftiu-> L1VPeMVYhEN3D29CrKZygZQv57sKxVmLARreHYMfXZjzDfdSdJVV
1EXkEnTMnaXCZWEurkDykqkwpmisURectm-> L5KxwozpbnmLmrvnELiDxGLJna3LnqdNf1R99HUjgNSL6ffgdzp2
1vkJzisvFEumfRzRBdKXbhKpNQogkHDfA-> KwsFTJ18xeLAzNo7sKPxhyZwbdmLh1ZunXxvG8Vi2vnfz6dGDgZJ
1PidEiENrQHEnhLuSgUFAvrGvEBbQqochg-> L4qYVee2GRQgV62b65XZdXnuAtmD3aNk511HbcSYrLPazy9kycJe
1EQRuFYuZBJqLqqHXvhzQwMPXiFJAAPxWA-> KxkY2kzycEU6bAYgfecAxi4PXTJTwVUBpdhBmt5rbPbSAPHGeqEB
1DvJoQWCrEVdxPHqDfCTYwBEnprfHESnYQ-> KzwWWt1Mi9kvopjnpAZ9R2hhpZ1LgYMGh5wRmFUZwXgUq4hm6dxN
1EebtNzKzKipCTRqtdjSwwMYyQxshUerZY-> KyJFTyX6KeKhyFayyD8ycBiUht9w8neEkQHYJ9XWhoxFGVMsYpyL
1EENkwXdrZQCxtKJJSQyNPzupqTGkMjqNG-> L22HkcqF6yEDm5jq2E4ov58ATiPviDpKoZdFQzUptXuwnDrWL2kJ
1GGJjyreqPFWBQVTPNQBcdnQXieCnHFvjY-> Kz1LvHGe6b6Zyku26TUowrzZzrPYZ8fCkhmyGZCRjnpH9ps7JeSp
1AFYRCfUhEMKYMdvtqPokBVRRqXhCTvjLM-> L5Dr28WAeJaevbzBmxNy4ecsspTWcmVAx52hjJJqB1AAq28n7JxR
1NRKwkayPpNaJwtaWQvYrMUBKGZPUQWLDb-> KwdWa9V74SXn4BfkyF7aY1Aqt8E2u9mfh3ucZEhz4ki3H12DGmoo
1PbfhKJrBXhUEHeHPtQSLyPqxZqRxrtGsB-> L5du3dik3MAdsKWa8MzqBPVNPDdZa81aecdPUtxEfJ2T4rtTo6QB
1HRLcLhtZrTrLRyGrdgFJSsHrpDBKtDRNt-> L1aQWgpfjSQwymaXmSKHXJdYvi823muoQhsXdpiea9EAKt64dunG
1LidgmhdDHbnofYyBMvGawjPNKhmkkSvMk-> KxuGZLFgsL9eekDKuKyvCMZ7hggoFBjez4KJXMBuRBT6ws2rvn4Z
1HeYPCAMTCnZGcGwpFJxpACNNDQScMpycu-> L22N5BpS93bmR6ACSVcN6kPSD951PRpPyikTqLF95HGrXycbrPwW
1ENofqZSVcWzKdAFpYPjJCpPhYCWtjeKoF-> L4V7BmmgCZNSCkmYeiThLMn8R9ejjoMj7aiX1rg8sRsRXUEuxgYG
1GSaWvnBjCMSuhaLGsviNGSezdGQSJEHai-> KwbkD7r5j6giMd49avbd75XVhxwbqnvDncA9wd92huBCdPfftv7t
1MfpmBbDkcQpzkRzehiPTCJoQhPmFqhTnF-> L1sNpPVKnmPAbSKKSFcbYQzV2KBiq8BFbqRv5wwcZvTnqAVpM2kz
1AqbhwpcqVFdyhPEEdkdFPuMAXXeRdNYxT-> L28L7f56J9tQm62nxC6jDFaCFdwwyY7manmrZ2dCom1mCHX39hmF
1GCDmRnswNsCjsussWeWZYBCesJaraDoDz-> L3atiJZUP7cRB5n25yk5wSsxVdSmEEwhBq9P82eTxMPRArsr41aY
1DgusromDdPJVeSqDcfYRBrywSoSYQzpox-> Kz59x5D9mWktQngaWCksAZkruojgK7udyDs8JvTa1sCofK24TTGf
1AApeTToPHVnsvAmzNwxcdcXyQRfJgnkM-> L1LWwcMcj9XhBxK3a2bUuvQyX7Yccbj3xK87axFQi8oFqd2MWXAM
1CFkFwKzpZMpckfXDnXnwopsgyTGccUXjW-> L1SZiKNq55FUJ9ecaHcNiDPCnLV5HnZm9iSQbggP7YX5N9ZchYz5
1HhvGLdLwjogkCGPgYHeMtcgFkfikdRczT-> L5bVCQRJYyXRrQSQmM4QT2KMb3zmHGvrgqxp9aYtjkciXaNsUGzW
1PKiRUTMcdTkmqCjKbEAFRtKeYWuMXvgjE-> L2Kw28aiVZQZoPmpu3FhMy1RWHrshiKg93AkdpEZGpAwxs2ZoU3s
I included the WIF to prove they are real. Please don't use any of this addresses for real! |
|
|
|
It is but I don't want to store all the raw transactions inside a unique array. There's a reason why the default publishrawtx watermark was set to 1000 - it only takes an hour or so to reach that many transactions inside the queue. As you can guess, the memory costs become increasingly enormous. And that's just on testnet - it's even more frequent on mainnet.
Why not store a hash of the rawtx in a list/array as well? That way you could check if that value is in there instead of the entire rawtx. Something like this You calculate sha-256(zmq->rawtx) to create a hash like 6b0599145092f00e21a2135c5197ff023a65e23939b310277e445efda1f50c53
you lookup this hash value in a list of processed transactions
if not found:
process the raw-transaction handled by zmq, and don't store the complete rawtx after processing.
That way you do not have to alter the bitcoind sourcecode. Please note: the hashing suggested above could be anything you want, it just meant as a unique identifier for a longer raw transaction and should not be mistaken for an actual txid! |
|
|
|
Those wallet that has not change address how will they solve the problem of privacy mention by Exodus?
They do not. If you choose to re-use an address for change you give that up. It's a matter of personal choice, even though it is not a very wise choice to do so. Although you should know giving up privacy in this case does not automatically mean it is clear which person/entity is connected to the address. But the other way around is true: as soon as it is clear address X belongs to person Z it means you can trace back every payment done and received to/by the re-used address of person Z because all bitcoin transactions are public. |
|
|
|
Based on the cryptic topic and answers I think this is what the OP means: He/she is the one who did the funding of the address 1E6EcVz1eXAaafV3U4hJNvAYqGKQ1pdW2d in these two transactions: a2bfe07be82c1899ffc5a6c5893a11f8e1437d6a580ed23381fa2e2cfea2bbba -> 0.00066895 BTC
9866a78cf47602b2dd5eeaf0c3803e871bcf9cf45d133d54ecc9eaf29f9d0cd3 -> 0.00185822 BTC Then shortly after (next day) the output of these transactions were sweeped: 327f06e4cf65a83207c466f50ecb079c2c546e3e589da6423cb764dfe15b5e4e -> 0.00055000 BTC to 39brUscpDr5WZCCpVDPePBov8iYf1kdeux
bc1963fdc3ef014177325c13a617ed73fac842f49405e89a50e18338f2c3710d -> 0.00175432 BTC to 132TRb6k6P689LKToerukdBEwperP6bBdx My analysis is also based on the fact these sweeping transaction are having a really high fee because the attacker wanted to be sure the transaction is included in the next block. So yes I think OP means he funded his/her address 1E6EcVz1eXAaafV3U4hJNvAYqGKQ1pdW2d twice and both times the funds got sweeped the next day. In that case it does indeed seem the wallet used is compromised. |
|
|
|
Almost sleeping but:  I read somewhere that wallet address is the public key generated from private key: 34xp4vRoCGJym3xR7yCVPFHoCNxv4Twseo wallet address (richest in the world) 0523e522dfc6656a8fda3d47b4fa53f7585ac758cd7c0caa48 decoded wallet address 1P5ZEDWTKTFGxQjZphgWPQUpe554WKDfHQ 00f22f5563839ba6ba5aa8d3726fcbc675cb3e4c9e215b75ef 38UmuUqPCrFmQo4khkomQwZ4VbY2nZMJ67 054a782fe173a0b6718d39667b420d9c8b07e94262578fac8c I know that public key for ecc secp256k1 is 64 bytes long, why then dcoded wallet has got only 25 bytes??? It all depends on the address type. For P2PKH (Pay to Public Key Hash) addresses the address is indeed a representation of the public key. But as o_e_l_e_o already explained it is not simply taking the public key and apply base-58 encoding. However two of the three addresses you linked start with a '3'. These are P2SH (Pay to Script Hash) addresses. The decoded wallet addresses refers in those cases to the hash of a redeem script, so it isn't based on a public key. |
|
|
|
|
I think we can stop waisting time on this since after all these posts and questions it is still not clear what the actual problem is.
My best guess: OP came up with some clever brainwallet a few years ago, but forgot what it was exactly. He/she tried a few combinations which resulted in a private key for wrong addresses (no incoming transactions). Now somehow it is expected we figure out what his original brainwallet was.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
