That's weird. Addresses don't just disappear like that.

Can you copy a random address (try mine from the profile) and paste it somewhere and see if it has been changed?

It's weird that the address has so many transactions AND the address is not showing up on your wallet. I'm suspecting that you might have been infected with a clipboard virus that could've replaced whatever address that you copied with their own.

Hopefully, that's not the case but have you used that specific address to receive the coins before? Did you copy and paste the address and did you verify that it's in your wallet before sending funds to it?

Could you go to Console and type ismine("bc1qe2ejfuyvmyzvc0q88hxqqujf3m8p7nm2hmcqxu"). Let me know the results.

It's nice to have a credit card offer cashbacks in Bitcoin. But isn't there credit cards offering cashbacks in cash with much better rates? I've got cards with cashbacks of up to 4% here.

If someone is searching for an alternative to their cards, I doubt they would choose to get this card over the others. Afterall, they have got to be rational. You can probably use the rewards earned from the higher cashback cards to buy more Bitcoins.

 0.016BTC

Did you encrypt it? File has to be unencrypted. I'm 100% certain that's not the private key you're looking for.

If done correctly, there should be a specific formatting that displays the private keys associated with the addresses.

Don't share with anyone the file or it's content.

Does your private key start with a 5, K or L? WIF private keys are not 128 characters long, wallet import format keys should be 51 or 52 characters max.

How did you extract your private key? Did you get it from a file with an extension of .key and did you open the file to copy the private keys out?

My guess is this:

I would say that forum moderation tends to be quite strict in terms of posts that doesn't really add to the discussion (I know there isn't a lot of discussion in the collectibles anyways). It would be quite detrimental to the forum if all the account botters flocks to collectibles and starts spamming useless posts.

I don't think it's particularly fair to remove posts that express gratitude but perhaps giving a merit would be better.

Source? That's one of the wildest assertion that I've heard in a while.
Correct and for a good reason.
It's done deliberately. That's why I don't support using most of the mainstream exchanges if you're trying to hide your identity. What's the use of hiding behind an obfuscation service if you're using an exchange which requires KYC validation?

Does a VPN/Proxy face the same problem? Perhaps, both Tor and VPNs could be used for similar purpose and some exchanges also treat them similarly.

That's not correct. Why would Tor be as risky if you're exposing whatever site you're visiting to the VPN explicitly? There's no difficulty in the VPN to obtain your IP address and your browsing history.

The traffic of onion websites (I presume you're talking about hidden services) doesn't go through the exit node. Entry node doesn't see your traffic, it's encrypted; it'll only know that your IP is using Tor but it can't see anything inside of the packet. I think a sybil attack would be the greatest cause of concern but given that your entry guard only changes once per 120 days, I think the chances of someone executing a sybil attack is greatly diminished, especially with the  resources required and the chances of success. Even if you're using a website in the internet, the exit node can only see what sites you're visiting, SSL Strip is not that big of a concern as the browser will always attempt to access the site using HTTPS. It can't trace back to the original IP.

Usually, when people reveal their own IP address, it's due to other de-obfuscating methods that are specifically targeted, which would've been way easier if it's a VPN under some jurisdiction. A court order would've probably allowed them easier access, even protonmail has to submit to court orders at times (though I believe the reason is very justified and they've done a very good job in ensuring the privacy).

If you're worrying about having a slow internet speed, then I think privacy is probably not your greatest concern. Having a good obfuscation comes at an expense of degraded browsing experience.

Correct. Electrum won't allow you to sweep an address, it's not possible. It'll only accept a private key.

When it's swept, you'll be greeted with a dialog to confirm that you're sending the funds into the wallet anyways. Do remember to keep a backup of the seeds.

Yes. You can either import or sweep. If you're thinking of using Electrum to spend your funds in the near future, consider creating a new wallet and go to wallet>private keys>sweep to sweep your funds into your new Electrum wallet.
Yes. Nothing will happen to your funds even if you accidentally create a watch-only wallet. Ideally keep your paper wallet around until you successfully spend the funds.

If you're scanning your address, you'll generate a watch-only wallet. If you're scanning your private key, you'll be able to generate the correct wallet and be able to spend your funds. Take note, if you generate a watch-only wallet, you'll have a [watch-only] at the the tab's description at the top which is pretty obvious.

IIRC, BIP38 is not supported on Electrum. If you've encrypted your private key, you'll need to decrypt it to get a WIF private key before importing it. It has been quite a while since I've last used a paper wallet but I believe it hasn't changed.

Generating weak keys. In theory, the OS could compromise Electrum and create a deterministic seed which would allow the attacker to compromise your funds without any connection to the internet. I don't find this much of a concern (if at all), I've never seen anything like this and Electrum might have implemented sanity checks (or the OS) to thwart such attempts anyways.

It doesn't hurt to validate the .iso file anyways.

Pester their support? They can recover the coins, it's up to them if they want to do so. Ultimately, Coinbase isn't at fault here as it's the user's negligence. No one else has the private key so only they can do something about it.

---

There's no such thing as an account. Both BCH and BTC could potentially have addresses that are valid for both chains. If you've generated a BTC address and sent funds using your BCH address, it'll be stuck there unless Coinbase wants to help you to recover it. Given that it's such a large corporation, doing so could be troublesome.

The phrase open sourced is often misconstrued and more often than not, it's used more of a marketing term for those who do not know better. It does not mean anything eitherways. Your connection still has to go through their server and there is a loophole for them to exploit at that point and can probably collect more data than you think. Being techsavvy or not, open sourced only guarantees that you can see the client that you run on the computer but you'll have no way of knowing what they're doing on the servers.

P2SH can be below 100 bytes for a 1 input 1 output transaction but that is not practical (nor realistic) at all [1]. The transaction cannot be smaller. It has to contain the public key + signature + redeem script which is more than what you'll need for a normal P2PKH transaction. If you're talking about sending to a P2SH address, your output specifies the hash160 of the address, which is the same size for both P2PKH and P2SH. P2SH does not necessarily have to be a multisig, what you've done is essentially wrapping a P2PKH in a P2SH which is not efficient.

I don't understand what you mean by the redeemer. The fees are the difference between the value of the output and the inputs so it is paid by whoever is sending the funds.


[1] https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/3MaB7QVq3k4pQx3BhsvEADgzQonLSBwMdj

There is no way, I repeat, no way to ensure that your VPN will not store your logs. Ultimately, when you're connecting using OpenVPN to their server, they can (and likely will) store logs of some form, anonymized or not. For that reason, I don't really recommend people to use VPNs with their wallet. It could potentially be detrimental to your privacy as it'll keep more detailed logs and your traffic has to flow through the VPN. Your trust now lies with the VPN provider instead of your ISP.

Tor is a much better alternative. And it's also free.

You don't have to delete the blocks, doing so would just result in additional bandwidth and time wasted to download all the blocks again. You should run Bitcoin Core with a -reindex flag. It'll rebuild the blocks using the existing data again and will take quite a while.

OP, did the client prompt you to reindex or are you encountering any errors in the client other than the debug.log.

Other than the other two, you can actually improve the speed by making Core assume that blocks are valid up to a certain higher block height. I do not condone this as it means that you're validating your block less and that if whatever data source you're getting the block height from is malicious, you'll have very serious repercussions.

Else, whatever nc50lc said is correct. If you're synchronizing a Bitcoin Core instance for your own usage, you can only increase dbcache to improve the synchronization. In my case, I was synchronizing the testnet client so it wasn't of much risk for me to do so.

You can't get all your transaction information if you don't synchronize it. SPV wallet or not, you're still synchronizing your wallet. It's just that SPV wallets are way faster than Bitcoin Core due to the fact that SPV wallets only download the block headers. You can't use a wallet without synchronization because you'll likely get outdated information which wouldn't allow you to spend your coins.