|
1561
|
Other / MultiBit / Re: Meganoob needs help recovering wallet
|
on: April 16, 2021, 06:00:39 AM
|
|
Bitcoin Core does not use .wallet or key files. Those are from MultiBit and preferably, you'll want to download MultiBit to restore it. Since MultiBit is not encrypted, just open it with any text editor and you should see the private keys in it. You can import it into Bitcoin Core after synchronizing. Check if there is a lock at the bottom right corner to check if it is encrypted.
Replacing the wallet.dat should do the job all right. Since you said you used it till around 2014, you should start seeing transactions once you synchronize to that point.
|
|
|
|
|
1562
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Two unconfirmed transactions and not being able to use my wallet balance
|
on: April 16, 2021, 02:40:53 AM
|
I sent these transactions to another wallet as I'm in the process of moving in small amounts to a better wallet. The BTC arrived there but was removed after two days. After that they show unconfirmed on the blockchain. Its been 4 days now and nothing come back and my remaining balance on wallet cannot be moved as I get a "transaction failed to send" message.
Is the "transaction failed to send" message from having two stuck transactions? I did many google searches and cant find anyone else with this problem.
In the recent days, the minmempoolfee has increased to above 2sat/vbyte and in the process, purging anything with a fee rate below that. Blockchain.info seems to have a different policy with that and you won't be able to send any transactions without them first purging it on their blockexplorer. Either export your keys and import it into another wallet or just wait for it to be purged or confirmed. Is there anything I can do to get this BTC back sooner or just wait a long period of time?
Export your keys and use another wallet. |
|
|
|
|
1564
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: User bitcoin nodes are useless to the network
|
on: April 15, 2021, 10:59:55 PM
|
|
All of the nodes process transactions if you're going to define it as them validating the transactions. Non-economic nodes, as defined in the article, are important as well as they will be helping with the redundancy of the network and still enforce protocol rules.
While the article has a point, it really has little to do with the actual reality of Bitcoin. If you're using a service with a centralized server, the server has to accept the invalid block as well. It probably won't. But that is just how it can be if you're relying on someone else to tell you which blocks are valid and which aren't. SPV clients requires a diverse set of connection to be listening well to the network and prevent any sort of sybil attack so without having a significant control over the hash rate of the network, it can't be executed against SPV clients. So will the scenario in the article happen? Very unlikely unless everyone starts using a few centralized services.
Running a node does primarily benefit the user who is using it though, the scale of the network as it is right now would bring marginal benefits to the network.
|
|
|
|
|
1565
|
Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: Electrum SEED being used on a HW - project anywhere?
|
on: April 15, 2021, 10:46:48 PM
|
I'm not sure the Electrum dev team think their seeds are "better," but are they?
They do. BIP39 was also marked as discouraged for implementation. They still use the same word list, and I imagine the provide the same level of entropy as a bip39 seeds for given phrase length. I thought the re-configured checksums of Electrum seeds are only meant to allow the phrase to define the type of wallet it creates, ie segwit vs legacy. Is there more to it than that?
The version bytes are defined at the start. Checksum has nothing to do with the type of seed it was meant to be. Electrum seeds doesn't require a fixed word list. Trezor's SatoshiLabs were involved with BIP39 development. I don't think it's impossible to implement something like this in their firmware but there isn't any problems with security or anything that urgent which would require something like this. While there's still a small chance that an Electrum seed is a valid BIP39 seed as well, Electrum will ensure that they won't inadvertently generate valid one that is compatible with both in the new release. |
|
|
|
|
1566
|
Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: Seed phrase not written on hard drive if you recover a wallet
|
on: April 15, 2021, 10:15:07 PM
|
In a way, it's good that the mnemonics aren't stored particularly if they aren't encrypted since the wallet password would then be useless.
My guess is that since the devs aren't thrilled about BIP39 importing support, judging by the depreciation notice on that window, they glossed over some details that were implemented for Electrum mnemonics, storing them in the wallet file (hopefully with encryption!) being one of them.
As mentioned, it probably doesn't make any difference in terms of security. While they aren't happy about people and wallets using BIP39, they could still have some form of uniformity with seed behavior. Having this could force them to eventually switch to Electrum but would be a pain if the user wants to continue using it for the time being. Since they've already implemented BIP39, might as well just be able to display the seed. Judging my the github issue above, it seems like they are alright with having a feature like this. |
|
|
|
|
1567
|
Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: Seed phrase not written on hard drive if you recover a wallet
|
on: April 15, 2021, 03:09:08 PM
|
I'm importing a BIP39 seed on Electrum 4.0.4. Your code doesn't seem to be the same with mine:
Oh. Electrum doesn't store the mnemonics when you're importing with BIP39, just generates the relevant seeds and discards the mnemonics. Not sure why it wasn't mentioned before actually but it was something I noticed when looking at the BIP39 specific codes. You can probably make an issue about it on Github if you want, should be an easy implementation. |
|
|
|
|
1568
|
Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: Seed phrase not written on hard drive if you recover a wallet
|
on: April 15, 2021, 02:52:59 PM
|
Are you opening the correct file? Are you importing BIP39 seeds or Electrum seeds? I've tested it again and I can't seem to replicate it. Here's the format represented in JSON in the wallet file with a recovered seed: "keystore": {
"derivation": "m/0'",
"pw_hash_version": 1,
"root_fingerprint": "-snip-",
"seed": "-snip=",
"type": "bip32",
"xprv": "-snip-",
"xpub": "-snip-"
},
If you are able to see the seeds from the UI, the seed should be stored in the wallet file. |
|
|
|
|
1569
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How will Quantum computing affect Bitcoin?
|
on: April 15, 2021, 02:03:09 PM
|
The government, military, and potentially high profile companies are the only ones that would be able to afford quantum computers, and even then a smaller division of this number will actually have a need for quantum computers. I would say that the government, and military are the only ones which could justify the cost. Now, you could say that the government are hostile towards Bitcoin, but that entirely depends on the government your talking about. Many governments have actually successfully regulated Bitcoin, and therefore Bitcoin earns them more money than not having it. By breaking Bitcoin if that was even theoretically possible would actually reduce the amount of money they earn. Bitcoin, isn't likely to replace fiat currencies, at least not for a long time. In fact, Bitcoin is probably not something that would replace it, but a similar implementation of Bitcoin might. Therefore, Bitcoin in its current state is of limited threat, and actually benefits the governments that have successfully regulated it.
By the time, Bitcoin was to become a threat or quantum computers became affordable enough to own for others, Bitcoin as well as banks, and other big industries would have already implemented quantum resistant algorithms, effectively making it redundant.
If the country's primary goal is to evade sanctions and improve financially instead of espionage or anything similar, they'll probably opt to attack Bitcoin. I'm pretty sure North Korea isn't developing quantum computer though. If not, then I think most countries would just start with deciphering the encrypted communication. The problem with quantum computers isn't with the kinds of algorithm that we could move towards in the future but the exposed public keys which would be inherently vulnerable even after the network forks to a new algorithm. Do you burn them or do you just leave a few million Bitcoins to be able to be exploited. Sure, quantum computers are expensive and the cost/benefit doesn't add up but as time goes by, these Bitcoins could eventually be a suitable target. You won't know if anything was broken by ECDSA; spending the 50 Bitcoins from the exposed addresses could just very well mean that whoever controls the private keys wanted to spend them. |
|
|
|
|
1570
|
Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: STATIC ADDRESS
|
on: April 15, 2021, 09:04:56 AM
|
I am waiting to received my bitcoin then when I tried to check on my electrum on my cellphone, it shows EXPIRED on the receiving address that I mentioned that I've clicked NEVER expires.
That's weird. Electrum shouldn't do this by itself. Right click the requests, click Copy Requests and paste it into a text editor/notepad and check what is the exp=. It shouldn't be there. It wouldn't matter if it expires or not as you're going to be receiving multiple payments to the same address. Fair warning, this will result in both your and your sender's privacy being compromised as it is easy to tell apart the transactions when the address is reused. |
|
|
|
|
1571
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: "COIN"- Coinbase IPO- Opens today- Thoughts?
|
on: April 15, 2021, 08:49:34 AM
|
|
I'd say that it is a pretty good news. It has given cryptos in general a huge exposure in the stocks market as well as in the public. Their financial are actually quite pretty but you have to keep in mind that their stocks would probably be closely related to the trend of cryptos, especially Bitcoin.
I personally wouldn't get into their stocks, they don't have especially crypto-friendly business practices and I'd rather just purchase Bitcoins directly than purchasing a stocks that would probably be following the trend.
|
|
|
|
|
1572
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Ex-CIA Director Proved Bitcoin Use in Illicit or Crime to be disprove
|
on: April 15, 2021, 04:22:01 AM
|
|
You cannot identify all of those kinds of transactions on Bitcoin due to its nature. If you are able to, then there is no privacy with Bitcoin. I'll take any studies like these with a pinch of salt. It relies on linking those organisations which are known or cracked down with their transactions being associated. This means that you won't be to identify transactions which are hidden well or unlinked. Bitcoin is still mostly the method used with ransomware or other smaller crimes.
Given that the price of Bitcoin has been rising steadily, I won't be surprised if it gets more viable for large scale money laundering in the far future.
|
|
|
|
|
1573
|
Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: At what point does Electrum decipher a private key?
|
on: April 15, 2021, 12:37:37 AM
|
Thanks. What I am really trying to understand is is it possible for my to validate my private key using Electrum on an offline PC but without creating a new wallet or sweeping it? What I've noticed is that if I enter the private key in that window the Next button becomes ungreyed. However if I enter that private key with a single character deviation the Next button remains greyed out. In essence I have an old priavte key that I would like to test is still valid but without moving the funds from it.
It is possible. Electrum will derive the address using the private key that you've provided. The reason why it becomes greyed after a small deviation is due to the fact that there is a checksum in the last few digits of the private key which checks whether the key is entered correctly. This helps the user to identify if they've mistyped their keys. If you're able to derive the correct address from the private key offline, then it would be valid. You don't have to be online to do so, Electrum doesn't interact with any server to generate an address. |
|
|
|
|
1574
|
Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: Help for unconfirmed transaction on electrum wallet
|
on: April 14, 2021, 02:56:51 PM
|
accelerator services usually need a fee too which is higher than what you would have paid if you used RBF and bumped the fee yourself. and the rest of the "free" ones are scam.
Only exception being ViaBTC but even that has a 100 TX per hour limit and a minimum of 10sat/byte. The confirmation for that would probably only come when they mine a block. |
|
|
|
|
1575
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Bitcoin transactions unconfirmed
|
on: April 14, 2021, 11:41:32 AM
|
If you're in a hurry and is willing to pay a lot more fees, you can use CPFP. Assuming that you're controlling 16qAvw1qDmJbAR9yeS54yrVe2r38d1T86K, you can spend a transaction with a higher fee to bump your total transaction fees. The total size of both transactions would be 416 bytes if your child transaction is 1 input-1 output. You can calculate the fees that you need by a simple calculation; calculate the total fees needed for your desired fee rate and calculate the amount of fees your second transaction needs and thus its fee rate. If you're willing to wait, then its fine. Fees can get much lower during the weekends, I made a <8sat/vbyte transaction during the weekends and it was confirmed fine within a few hours. |
|
|
|
|
1576
|
Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: Windows installation errors when trying to update Electrum wallet.
|
on: April 14, 2021, 10:41:41 AM
|
What Windows version are you using? According to https://electrum.org/#download , recent Electrum versions might not work on Windows versions older than Win 7 and you might need to install the KB2999226 Windows update. I thought so at first but the bundled python broke compatibility with an older version of Electrum at 3.0.X and if that was the issue, OP shouldn't have been able to run 3.3.4 (?). Worth a try but it is hard to say without knowing what the error is. Electrum also shouldn't corrupt/change the password like this as well. |
|
|
|
|
1577
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin illicit transactions are less than 1%
|
on: April 14, 2021, 10:35:22 AM
|
|
You can identify the illicit transactions by linking them through blockchain analysis with known addresses. The problem is this is that if you believe that they have accurately identified most of the illicit transactions, then you're insinuating that Bitcoin is not doing enough for privacy; granted most people involved in these would be more inclined to cover their tracks than the average Joe. Interesting to note that the study actually states this limitation of the estimates.
The narrative that Bitcoin is used solely, or has a huge proportion of illicit transactions is wrong. Media outlets will do anything to sensationalize fake news and people would consume it willingly and probably won't even bother checking the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
1578
|
Bitcoin / Wallet software / Re: Mycellium vs CoinBase?Whats the difference?
|
on: April 14, 2021, 07:17:22 AM
|
I know that Ledger sells the required cables in their shop. They call it the Ledger OTG Kit. Wouldn't that be enough to pair Electrum mobile and a Ledger hardware wallet? It's a set with three different cables: USB-C to Micro-USB USB-A to Micro-USB USB-C to USB-C The price is ridiculous - €15, but cheaper alternatives can be purchased in tech shops. Electrum currently does not communicate with any USB devices on their Android version. You need some sort of interface code to be able to communicate with it in the first place. Implementing that first would be the first step in supporting HW wallets, which AFAIK is in the pipeline. |
|
|
|
|
1579
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Should I Run a Node?
|
on: April 13, 2021, 04:37:18 PM
|
This is why I was asking if it's just "easier" to setup a full node and do this with Core?
Really appreciate it everyone, thanks very much!
You don't need to use wget. Just download both the.asc and the .tar.gz file to a directory, navigate from the terminal to that directory and validate it as stated in the post. Bitcoin Core uses sha256 signatures in a PGP signed message for validation. Probably would be roughly the same complexity, if you aren't familiar with it. The only downside of Bitcoin Core is that you'll have to download and verify the entire blockchain which can take a very long time. Would you be fine with that? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
