Yeah. Just introduce a bridge between the device and Core. An example would be HWI: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/HWI.

The feature introduced by Ledger doesn't allow you to use Bitcoin Core to sign transactions, etc. Only allows you to fetch transactions using that.

Since OP mentioned Ledger, I assumed that they used Bitcoin Core as an interface for the Ledger and hence why the seed phrase was mentioned. Without the actual hardware wallet, any wallet that has been created is a watch-only wallet.

You need all 12 words. You cannot recover just by using the addresses.
If you've lost it, then bruteforcing is the only way albeit with very low probability. BTCrecover has a quick start guide on GitHub..

Other than the methods the above replies mentioned, you can also check the redeem script itself. I'm assuming that you keep a backup of your redeem script, which is standard practice.

The redeem script should begin with 53 (OP_3) and end with 54ae (OP_4 OP_CHECKMULTISIG).

You'll need the seed phrase to be able to spend your Bitcoin. Unfortunately, since you're missing 5 of the words, it'll be quite impossible to be able to crack it.

If you want, you can give it a try with BTCrecover: https://github.com/3rdIteration/btcrecover.

SHA256 and RIPEMD-160 are not encryption algorithms, they are hash functions. You also cannot crack encryption or pre-image HASH160 with quantum computers.

Addresses are generated from the public keys with SHA256 and RIPEMD-160, public keys are based on ECDSA and does not involve SHA256 at all. Please do some fact checking before posting. Also, it isn't very relevant to the topic.

The blocks in Bitcoin contains a version field. It was used for soft fork signalling by the miners to indicate support for the various forks and new rules/features. Mining a block that is below Version 4 will result in the reference client rejecting them; though ASICBoost introduced quite a variety of alien versionbits, support for Taproot is still signalled via that with speedy activation. I believe Core still checks for the minimum nVersion of the blocks and generating a block with an old client could potentially produce blocks that can be invalid.

Not likely. The reason why quantum computers are perceived to be of a threat against Bitcoin is because of the fact that Shot's algorithm provides an exponential speed up against asymmetric algorithm, specifically ECDSA in Bitcoin's case. This means that the attacker has to have the public key to be able to get to the private key in the first place. It can be mitigated as long as you're able to not reuse address and assuming that the transaction gets confirmed within a reasonable period of time. Again, the running cost of quantum computers likely does not justify the profits from something like this.

Quantum computers also run Grover's algorithm which provides a far lesser speedup for preimage attacks. That isn't very beneficial and would probably not be an area of concern for Bitcoin.


Quantum computers cannot be measured the same way as classical computers. While asymmetric cryptography would probably be compromised given sufficient time, hash functions like SHA256, SHA512, RIPEMD160 could be weakened in due time but it still wouldn't be enough.

I might be a bit dense today, and hence deleted my previous post after realizing something.  

If I'm not wrong, the seed isn't extended by adding 'Electrum' to it. The salt is however, 'Electrum + passphrase' instead of 'mnemonic + passphrase'. If the seed can be used in the salt to produce a different 512bit output, wouldn't there still be a considerable increase in entropy as long as the ENT of the input < length of the output? I'm sure I'm missing something here.

Yes. I'll suggest using the method using Electrum console as mentioned above. You'll be covered under the checksum and won't have to mess with the passphrase as much. I'll consider Shamir secret sharing for some redundancy as well and split them up further.

Fair. I would probably recommend people to start using implementations that are designed for secure message exchange instead, PGP etc. Electrum's ECIES was incorrectly implemented in the past and AFAIK isn't widely reviewed either.

Not all unlocking scripts require a signature.

---

Electrum's current protocol documentation doesn't include this. Might be a bit of a hassle implementing this?

No point adding additional resources to try to index each of the public keys that has ever been exposed on the network. You have to individually use the scriptsig of each transaction to find the public key. Possible to do, but mostly not very useful for most people. I'm not sure about the resource usage for something like this but I assume that this could take up more resources as well.

You can probably make a pull request for that though I believe it would be quite an intensive code change, from ElectrumX to Electrum protocol as well. Not worth the effort, IMHO.

I'm intrigued though, what would people gain or what use would they have by knowing the public key?

They made Bitcoin transactions illegal but no one has tried banning it on a large scale, AFAIK. China never used its GFW to ban Bitcoin connections. It's perfectly simple to start blocking them, but circumventing them is quite easy too. Just make sure you can use Tor and run your node through it.


Well, nobody knows whether it is overstated or understated. I think I saw it from a report which collected data from the various known crime and that is what they concluded. There is simply no way to tell how accurate it is. I'd argue criminals would prefer using privacy coin for something like this, unless its a ransomware, most uses Bitcoin.

It is possible since the start. The client version merely introduces the ability for people to create transactions with amounts smaller than that. Anyone could've made a transaction with a satoshi but anything below 0.01BTC for any of the outputs would've triggered the 0.01BTC minimum fees for relaying. The network has always recognize 8 decimal points as the denomination.

IIRC the volume of Bitcoin that is known to be involved in illicit transaction is fairly small, I think less than 0.5%.

The value of Bitcoin partially comes from the fact that governments cannot block Bitcoin. You might be able to hinder your own citizens using Bitcoin by draconian laws. It'll be quite a difficult task to block it completely. Even if the exchanges were to be shut down, the decentralized exchanges would likely still operate as well.

No. There is no relation between the individual addresses other that they can be deterministically generated using a single seed, assuming HD wallets. It is fairly easy to determine the various addresses generated by the same seed with some degree of certainty by their spending patterns.

It's not possible to get the private keys with your addresses in the first place. Reversing the public keys would be infeasible right now as well.

If you're using a HD wallet and accidentally reveal your non-hardened master public key and a child private key, it'll be possible to get the master private key using the combination of both.

HD addresses doesn't matter, they look the same as any other address and it is impossible to determine if they're with the same HD seeds.

Some exchanges don't publicly reveal their hot wallet addresses anymore or just use several unique ones. Tracing the path of your deposit or the inputs to your withdrawal should be sufficient to check if it likely belongs to an exchange or not.

Wallet explorer usually have a set of addresses that are known to belong to the services and determine the link through associating it with the cluster of addresses. If a known address is within that cluster, it'll probably associate the cluster with that service.

From my experience, it was able to positively identify quite a few services though and the success rate was pretty high as well.

I'm looking to purchase an EVGA GTX 1080TI Hybrid cooler, more specifically: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti SC2 Hybrid Gaming iCX (11G-P4-6598).

The cooler on it has unfortunately failed and I don't want to risk modding it to fit a different AIO. I'm open to any reasonable offers, looking for that specific AIO cooler and shroud only.

I'm assuming OP is talking about this: https://bitcoinminingcouncil.com/. I've seen quite a few sites mentioning this link.

Michael Saylor was a proponent of this, and I believe he is involved in this as well. Most of the miners won't want to be regulated in any sense and would probably not join the council, save for the few current members.
That is not how it works nor would it be realistic.

Laws within the US that governs Bitcoin mining related firms or its related activities.

Yeah, I know but it doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt. They can give tons of excuse for something like this happening as well. Having the mining pool openly state that they're censoring transactions is not a good look however you look at it, just negative PR. They also don't reveal the kinds of transactions which they actively censor, and given the fact that they find the blocks on an irregular basis, it makes it all the more harder to prove that they're not doing something like this. Of course, there isn't any reason why they should continue censoring it, because it is just ineffective.

Regardless, I think MARA pool's decision to signal for Taproot shouldn't really be associated with their past censorship behavior. They're doing so because there isn't any reason why they shouldn't.