Messing around with watching-only wallets in Electrum on Android/mobile and I accidentally added the wrong one, naming it what I wanted to name the one I actually wanted to watch.

Three years later and this is still difficult to find. The data location seems to have changed, or varies between phones.

OP found solution in-app but doesn't share.

Meanwhile, the thread gets indexed by Google and becomes a top result for searches related to deleting Electrum wallets on android. And is the only one referencing an in-app solution

Relevant XKCD (https://m.xkcd.com/979/) on us. It's just as frustrating when someone posts for help then later says "nvm found it" not realizing that others might have had the same question and their thread then becomes the top result - with no answer

Anyway, took me 10 minutes or so to find it. You have to open the wallet, then tap on the wallet name itself in the top left. You cannot rename it but you can delete it.

For future Googlers.

There's a certain lack of CPU benches on the site so...

CPU
CPU's MODEL NAME: AMD R7 1700
HASHRATE: 28 S/s
MINER SOFTWARE: CPU-ZENOCAT-AVX2
PARAMETERES: -b -t 8
OS: Windows 10 1709
TDP(OPTIONAL):
EXTRA CONFIG(OPTIONAL): SYSTEM'S RAM, temperature, overclocking, etc.
Stock CPU, Stock mem (2133). Hashrate is a rounded average of 3 benchmark (-b) runs. -t 16 is the same or slower most runs.

Sorry, new to this. How do I run a node/gateway? The github only has the webUI code and "cryptobridge" is empty there.

I'm looking to do this because it's unusable as-is due to any nodes near me having too-high latency.

I can only sometimes view the deposit/withdraw screen.

Edit: nevermind. Realized it's the BridgeCoin on github. Which presents its own problem. I have to compile from source since there are no releases.

I'm willing to do that but for me it's a full-day project due to dependencies not always being clear. I'm willing to spin up a VM and do it but...

If there's any official compiled versions that anyone knows of, please let me know.

I'm wondering if this is my issue.

Two separate machines, windows 10 1709. CMD remains open and reports healthy hashrate of previous but GPU load will randomly go to 0 as if something crashed and stay there. Pool reports no hashrate. No indication from software and no attempted restarts.

I've removed the --asm and the hashrate is now 60-70% of before. But within 30 seconds one of my GPUs randomly stopped mining and the hashrate indicator still says it is. Op. Now the other one has stopped, within 60 seconds of starting both.

Dammit. And I was all excited to let this run overnight after getting everything working.

Can anyone recommend another fork? I tried sgminer but the hashrate was under 10MH/s even after optimizing the intensity.

Edit: seems ok after installing every version of C distributable from 2005-2013 (2015 was already installed). 10 minutes testing so far. Will report back tomorrow maybe. Note that the previous issues had zero messages, popups or apparent crashes.

Further edit: one machine died overnight but that's because it was a fresh install - windows 10 default power settings standby after 30 minutes. The other machine was fine. So this seems to have solved my issue. Thanks for the optimized miner, OP.

Further, further edit: Added another machine and it had the same issue. Installing all the C++ distributable didn't help - quit after an hour. Only real difference is I had to install an older version of 10 (1607) due to circumstances. We'll see if upgrading to 1709 helps.

That all said, clearly some kind of failure-detection and recovery would be very much appreciated

I have updated the list a bit and would like to apologize for missing the moon landing on December 3rd! I'm not really active on bitcointalk anymore but we have been in recent need of an update.

As of August 24th, the funds are on the move. He waited 4 years to try to avoid detection.

https://blockchain.info/address/1HKywxiL4JziqXrzLKhmB6a74ma6kxbSDj

I'm currently having an issue with Ubuntu and the latest version of CGminer. I'm attempting to compile it and got the error to install libusb-1.0. So I installed libusb-1.0



So I tried compiling again but got the same error:



Anyone have an idea?

I hope you don't take offense to my question; I am merely curious. Are you foreign (to English-speaking nations) or are you, like, 10-12 years old? Or both? I ask because it sort of changes my interpretations of what you've said above.


Either way, though, I sort of think the whole users thing is a bit overrated as a threat. I've been with Bitcoin since a little before this user account was created and believe it is solid enough for there to always be users using it in some way, regardless of what happens in the future.


Your second point is one I am a bit confused about and my question to you in my first paragraph comes into play the most as to my understanding of it. From what I am reading, you seem to think there is a single developer of Bitcoin that has such control as to shut down the Bitcoin network and/ or disrupt communications and control the supply and ownership. This is completely false and goes against everything Bitcoin is (decentralized, etc.). Much of the point of Bitcoin is to avoid said controls entirely. Bitcoin was designed with no central point of failure or control. I find it impossible to believe you could be involved in Bitcoin for 3 years and not know this, hence my question about your age and/ or English language skills. If so, it might be possible I am misinterpreting and you are actually just talking about the block-size debate?


This statement has no place in reality, in my opinion. Everything I've read leads me to the opinion that the governments couldn't care much about Bitcoin despite the attention some have paid to it. Even if they did, Bitcoin is hardly a money-making opportunity for them.

How would one prevent me from simply creating a virtual disk in RAM for the I/O tasks?

Is merge mining possible with this coin?

I do. I get 8H/s per core. I'm using the terminal windows miner in OP. I am using only 4 cores though. I think I recall the hashrate being something like 7.5 or 7.75 per core when I was using 6 cores. Do note that I am overclocked to 4.1GHz, however.

You should still be higher than you are listing on stock though. Are any other programs taking up processor time in task manager on your computer? Also download CPU-z and check that there's no downclocking going on. You can use coretemp to monitor the temperatures.

As someone only familiar with very basic C++, and zero knowledge of coin code, I cannot decipher from those links what the block time is.

I'm still waiting for a source for this information. Along with other specs.

However, using simple math, it seems to be about 2 minutes (suprnova is 95% of the hashrate and did 825 blocks in 24-h including orphans).

Buy more CPUs?

Seriously, you are doing nothing wrong. I get 0.032 Kh/s on my FX-8320 using 4 threads. These people with higher hash rates simply have more processors, either themselves or by renting from services like Amazon EC2.

Where did you get the miner software from? Someone in an earlier post posted a link to miner software. It looked suspicious and when I downloaded it, Windows smartscreen blocked it. So I just didn't take the risk or running it. This one was supposed to be GUI and not mentioned in OP.

looks like someone grabbed the reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/axiomcrypto

Not sure if the person checks out. Might want to ask if you can mod it, OP, or create an official subreddit of your own.

Just off topic:

I'm curious as to what your native language is? This isn't the first time I've seen "minning" used instead of "mining." The first time I saw it a while back, I assumed it was just a mistake. But you seem pretty consistent.

It's funny because 2 of his 3 examples are now less than half their value. The third only went from 38 satoshi to 44 satoshi


Trading anything without insider information is gambling. Even if you see high chances and pay attention (some people are good at these things) it doesn't change the fact that it is gambling.

This is also a bit of hype seeing as you built up hype leading up to your article. A non-hyped article would be titled "how to trade alt-coins"

Also, how would I "do faucets" and earn 0.005 btc? I decided to experiment a 2 years ago and bookmarked 10+ faucets, coming back every day to do them and even used tor to get around some ip changes. My result? After a week, something along the lines of double digit satoshis. You either need to expand this section or remove it.

They posted on Reddit and already have 26 upvotes trying to "sell" S5s. If you have a reddit account, please help vote this down and report it. OP was clearly a highjacked/ repurchased account based on the history.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMining/comments/3de0fn/taiwan_farm_upgrades_to_private_custombuilt/

Let's all ignore this asshole and try to get a discussion going (I literally just went to his history, clicked a random page # in the 50s, didn't scroll down and both posts that were on my screen were him calling someone a dumbass and someone else a dumbass and stupid. Clearly not a very welcoming person.).

On second thought, let's not ignore him and just edit his post instead:


He makes a valid point. I'll admit I haven't been keeping up with alt coins in the past year but I haven't seen anything better that I think would be completely beneficial to be added to Bitcoin if it were to be "done over" so to speak.

Your point #1 and #3, could you expand on exactly what you mean vs how Bitcoin is now?

As for #2, I think it's fine as a layer on top of Bitcoin. It's not something everyone wants or needs. What's everyone's thoughts on the actual complications of creating a coin with this in mind from the beginning?

#4. This is one I disagree with. Faster transaction times would be nice but they also mean more stale shares, higher network requirements and a larger blockchain. Anyone know how this could affect a coin that is used as much as Bitcoin?

On a side note, a common argument I hear against the supposed "faster transactions" in Litecoin is that it would also mean more confirmations would be required to be as secure, therefore negating the point. That said, isn't it better to have one confirmation in 2 minutes vs no confirmations in 2 minutes? On the other side, unless confirmations are within a few seconds, there's no real advantage vs Bitcoin as off-chain/ unconfirmed transactions would still be required for some services (people don't want to wait 2 minutes at a POS terminal or even online just as they don't want to wait 10 minutes. I'd even argue Bitcoin is better off with 10 minute confirmations as it better encourages other solutions. The last humble bundle purchase I made went through within seconds). Does anyone more in tune with the lower level working of Bitcoin know what kind of effects several second confirmations would have on a network such as Bitcoin?