Try backing up the ".electrum" folder within your user profile and then deleting or moving it which would force Electrum to recreate the folder. If there is something in your profile that is causing the issue, this should fix it I believe.
thanks for your help. maybe next time you could suggest to delete only the .electrum/config file, so the user keep their wallet data. |
|
|
|
|
if your wallet was split, the new wallets do not have .dat extensions.
open the wallet folder from electrum 'File>Open' to view them
|
|
|
|
|
when it asks you to create a new wallet, just go one step further and select 'I already hve a seed'
|
|
|
|
|
I perfectly understand your argument.
Yes, the number of valid seeds is shrunk.
But that does not matter, because an attacker still needs to enumerate all seeds, in order to know if they are valid.
So, we are not reducing the size of the haystack.
It is as if you were claiming that the number of possible combinations is one because in the end there is only one seed that matches the private keys.
With that kind of reasoning, the entropy of anything is zero.
The problem is that you do not understand what entropy is. I think there is no point continuing this discussion.
Btw, raising the num_bits parameter to 132 would have no effect at all; math.ceil() already ensures that n is a multiple of 11 bits.
|
|
|
|
|
you need to generate the transactions with Electrum, and it will add metadata about the inputs
|
|
|
|
Again, you are wrong. Just imagine for a second that the prefix passed to is_new_seed() is no longer 8 bits long, but 132 bits long. Imagine, for the sake of the argument, that I have a seed that passes this test; its hashes starts with the 132 bits prefix required by is_new_seed(). That seed, by the way, was generated by 12 words randomly chosen from a 2048 dictionary. So, is the entropy of the seed now zero? If I follow your argument, it should be, because is_new_seed() has subtracted 132 bits of entropy. From my point of view, the entropy is indeed zero, because I know the seed. Just like the entropy of anything I know with 100% certainty. From your point of view, however, nothing has changed: you still need to enumerate a set of 2^132 candidate seeds in order to find the seed. I hope this enlightens you. For the record, I have written a paragraph on the only real issue here, which is how key stretching is affected. http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/seedphrase.html#security-implications |
|
|
|
Hi guys,
I've recently bought an refurbished Samsung Galaxy GT-I9100 really cheap with intentions to use it as a cold storage wallet. I mean, uninstall all applications already present, install Electrum (apk) and never allow bluetooth or wi-fi (SIM card already removed). My intention is to use my everyday regular phone to watch this wallet and create transactions to be signed by this other offline one (I'd use the camera to read the generated QR-code). My susprise was to find out that Electrum's Android version cannot sign transactions. Is there a way to get this to work? Thank you buddies.
yes it can sign transactions. you need to scan the unsigned transaction with the camera, and it will open a transaction window with a sign button. |
|
|
|
I'd like to do the same, Lumpi101 , and although I already have bitcoins my plans went down water since the air-gapped phone that should sign the transactions now have bitcoins in its wallet but cannot sign anything, because Electrum's Android version apparently does not support signing transactions. I got very disappointed with that, looks like signing transactions is an ordinary feature for a wallet manager and Electrum won't do that.
Does anybody know another wallet manager FOR ANDROID that could sign transactions and can be installed via apk?
yes, the android version is capable of signing unsigned transactions. all you need is to scan the unsigned transaction, either from another phone or from your Electrum desktop. then you will see a transaction window with a sign button. |
|
|
|
problem in this specific case is: user on his first install , make the error to dont write down the seed securely , and he have unfortunaly created a watch only wallet , with 2FA .. That does not make sense: 2FA wallets are not watching-only. Does the OP remember how he created the watching only wallet? Usually you have to enter a master public key (xpub) in order to do that. Where did he get the xpub from? if the xpub is one of the cosigners of a 2fa wallet, then it should be possible to retrieve the funds from the 2fa seed. if the xpub comes from another seed, that he forgot to write down, then the funds are lost. but in that case, why would he delete the wallet file? |
|
|
|
|
may I ask how you created this wallet?
to create a watching only wallet, you need to enter a master public key or some bitcoin addresses.
|
|
|
|
|
the index.html file should be copied from lib/www
if it does not work, it means that the electrum daemon does not have the proper permissions, or that an index.html file already exists in your requests_dir
|
|
|
|
Also, 100% fee multiplier ...
this feature does not exist anymore in recent versions. recent versions have dynamic fees, and they display the expected confirmation time of your transaction depending on how much fee you pay. |
|
|
|
I believe you have restored a "trezor" wallet from your seed.
If you still have that seed, you can restore the wallet using the latest version of Electrum, by checking the 'bip39' option. Holy shit this worked! If both of you pm me your wallet adress i'd like to give you a few dollars for your help  no need to send me money. I'm happy it worked. |
|
|
|
|
I believe you have restored a "trezor" wallet from your seed.
If you still have that seed, you can restore the wallet using the latest version of Electrum, by checking the 'bip39' option.
|
|
|
|
|
this is probably caused by a bug in an earlier 2.7 version.
this bug caused corruption of the wallet file; you should regenerate your wallet from seed & xpubs.
edit: your cosigners might need to regenerate their wallets too.
|
|
|
|
|
can you confirm that you are using tor too?
|
|
|
|
|
I reported the issue to Google Adwords and to CloudFlare
|
|
|
|
|
please PM me your xpub if you want me to have a look.
|
|
|
|
|
You do not have to upgrade, but it is always a good idea to do so.
In general, you will pay less fees with recent wallet formats.
If you encounter a bug, though, please upgrade, before you request support.
For developers, there is nothing more irritating than users who are complaining about bugs that have been fixed a year ago.
It feels like being said: "I don't give a shit about your work".
|
|
|
|
|
You probably have created a wallet with two-factor authentication, where transactions are cosigned by Trustedcoin.
An extra fee is charged per transaction, with a discount if you buy prepaid transaction.
Click on the Trustedcoin icon in order to see the billing options.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
