A lot of this will depend on the specific device and version of the Android OS that the device is running. Newer devices and/or versions of Android support full device encryption, or encrypted app storage etc. This means that any information that someone might be able to recover from such a device would be effectively useless to them without the appropriate decryption keys etc. 2. If the above statement is true (could be), the possibility of recovering an encrypted data that have been deleted from a device is 1?
There are numerous (unknown) factors at play here (device, android OS version, potential vulnerabilities, attackers resources like budget/time/skill/equipment etc), so it's really impossible to quantify the possibility with any certainty... so while the possibility may not be 0, it's not necessarily 1 either. 3. Is it recommendable to make use of the “single address account" that Mycelium supports, knowing that somebody can get hold of my device (either by buying or stealing) and recover the deleted private keys using some recovery Apps.?
I think the usual caveat for "mobile device" wallet applies here... don't use mobiles devices to store/use amounts of crypto worth more than the cash you'd be willing to keep in a physical wallet in your pocket etc. ...just need to clarify (To know) if they is a loophole that can be sealed or have a reason to avoid or proceed with the “Mycelium single wallet account" for people that use them as the best way to secure large amount of bitcoin.
And given this particular use-case involves dealing with a "large amount of bitcoin"... I'd be inclined to say "No"... it's not suitable. Unless the use-case is simply spending the coins from an existing private key that was created offline etc... ie. import the private key, send ALL the coins (and any change sent to new address created offline etc), consider the old private key "compromised" and never use that old key/address ever again. Even then, I'd only use Mycelium as a last resort or in an emergency... |
|
|
|
Have downloaded and tested the "1.0.0" release... findings so far are: 1. Trezor PIN code entry is now supported 2. Trezor Passphrase functionality is NOT supported (it briefly flashes up on Trezor to enter passphrase on computer, but then reverts to logo screen, and Lily Wallet reverts to "Click to Enter PIN" screen) 3. Single HW device with Ledger Nano S seems to be working OK - Defaults to P2SH-P2WPKH (aka Nested Segwit) addresses using m/49'/0'/0' derivation path I got to the point of trying to test a send, but something weird happened... I selected my device and then it immediately said I had "confirmed" the transaction on my device, without anything being shown or confirmed on the device.  I'm a little hesitant to continue and push the "Send Transaction" button which is now active, as the fee it wants to use is quite "high" (25,000+ sats total)... in the meantime I've contacted the wallet author and asked if it is possible to connect the wallet to TestNet, so I can do some more testing. |
|
|
|
And once again it would appear that I'm going to be waiting days to get the new firmware update. 3 days and it still isn't showing up in Ledger Live as being available:  Thankfully this isn't a "critical" update for fixing a security vulnerability etc.  |
|
|
|
2020-08-06 19:21 (ERROR) -- BDM.pyc:275 - setSatoshiDir: directory does not exist: C:\Users\viggo\AppData\Roaming\Bitcoin\
[...]
2020-08-09 21:49:16 (ERROR) -- BDM.pyc:197 - DB error: C:\Users\viggo\AppData\Roaming/Bitcoin/blocks is not a valid path
[...]
You need to look at the bottom of the log file next time  The pathing looks fine... assuming that the Bitcoin Core datadir is "D:\BTC\Bitcoin" 2020-08-13 13:45:57 (INFO) -- ArmoryQt.py:1872 - setSatoshiPaths
2020-08-13 13:45:57 (WARNING) -- SDM.pyc:402 - Spawning DB with command: C:\Program Files (x86)\Armory\ArmoryDB.exe --db-type="DB_FULL" --cookie --satoshi-datadir="D:/BTC/Bitcoin\blocks" --satoshi-port=8333 --datadir="C:\Users\viggo\AppData\Roaming\Armory\" --dbdir="C:\Users\viggo\AppData\Roaming\Armory\databases"
2020-08-13 13:45:57 (INFO) -- ArmoryUtils.pyc:689 - Executing popen: ['C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Armory\\ArmoryDB.exe', '--db-type="DB_FULL"', '--cookie', u'--satoshi-datadir="D:/BTC/Bitcoin\\blocks"', '--satoshi-port=8333', '--datadir="C:\\Users\\viggo\\AppData\\Roaming\\Armory\\"', u'--dbdir="C:\\Users\\viggo\\AppData\\Roaming\\Armory\\databases"']
I see that the "Connected" message is in purple and not green which generally means that Armory is not able to connect to the Bitcoin Core node "properly". I'd suggest making sure that the Bitcoin Core node is being started with "server=1" in the bitcoin.conf. Once "Connected" is showing in Green, if you still have zero blocks, try doing the "Help -> Rebuild and Rescan Databases" option in Armory. |
|
|
|
passphrase :
child shout iron pair row aunt
Interesting... "shout" is not on the BIP39 wordlist, so that rules out these 6 word "passphrases" as being a BIP39 mnemonic of some description. Electrum also used 12 words, not 6... and "row" is not in BIP39 or either the "old" or the "new" Electrum lists...  I tried different combinations for the "standard" SHA256-type Brainwallet: child shout iron pair row aunt Child Shout Iron Pair Row Aunt CHILD SHOUT IRON PAIR ROW AUNT and none of them come back to address: 1A9Tp3JjDvyQUtyQYLdDdCqMgK12sVZ238 Tis indeed a bit of a puzzle... Does the document that contains this address and 6 word passphrase combination, also have a "global" 12 word mnemonic attached to it? Or are the 12 word mnemonics that you have in a completely different document with different addresses? If there is a 12 word mnemonic, and then the individual addresses have the 6 word passphrase, it's possible that the BASE16 is correct and the 6 word passphrases are "BIP39 passphrases" and you both the 12 word mnemonic + 6 word passphrase to derive the correct private key/address. |
|
|
|
Never tried to do this and at the moment I don't have an easy way to test so I would appreciate if somebody can confirm following.
Start Electrum in "TestNet" mode... create a new wallet and then give me one of your TestNet addresses from that wallet (feel free to PM me if you prefer)... I'll send you some tBTC to play with. You'll be able to test the spending from specific addresses and/or specific UTXOs |
|
|
|
Is my Ledger Nano S broken? Do I need to purchase a new one?
Most likely "No" to both your questions. It should be possible to recover the device, although there is a chance you'll need to do a full restore. Do you have your 24 word seed mnemonic available? Support.ledger.com troubleshooting FAQ the directions said to open ledger live and go to Manager tab to continue update I can't do that because it asks that I
unlock the device. Cant unlock device because it is stuck, showing bootloader on screen. What do I do now?
Additionally... if you leave it on the "Manager" screen, it should eventually prompt you to attempt to "Repair" after a minute or so:  Click the "Repair" button and follow the onscreen instructions. |
|
|
|
The company has lost a lot of its good reputation over the past few days, so unless they update, I expect them to lose part of their market share in the future.
You think? You guys probably know I'm not a tech-savvy person, but I don't see a reason anywhere in this thread which would lead me to believe that the above statement is true. Am I missing something, or could someone possibly dumb it down to my level? Maybe not so much in this thread... but have a read of some of the other threads regarding recent events around vulnerabilities and the way they were handled... like putting the testing off for 3 months during agreed "responsible disclosure" period due to resourcing issues around "covid" etc, and then magically getting it released a day after the guy went public when the period expired... While in the meantime they have added a ton of "useless" shitcoin features etc. And then the PR shitstorm when they had the data breach on their ecommerce platform.And of course, the fact that they keep ignoring some features like "Coin Control" while continually putting more and more altcoin support in... and now, they are arguably making the Nano S UX "worse" by taking another 4k of the already limited memory. I get that it's a juggling act for them, and they're simply not going to please "all the people, all the time"... but, as of late, they are not really improving things for my use cases, tbh |
|
|
|
I hear yachts do it, and there isn't a separate network connectivity option on computer just for satellites so I'm going to assume it's WiFi. Correct me if I'm wrong
Low Earth Orbit (LEO), is at least 160km above the surface... it's not a WiFi signal. It will likely be either a dedicated satellite network... most likely the same one used by aircraft providing "In-Flight WiFi" services, which I believe is generally Immarsat... or, when closer to land, 4G/5G datalinks... or a combination of both. In either case, it will require specialised equipment like dishes/antennas/adapters to be able to connect to the satellites/cell towers... |
|
|
|
What is the "Size" of your transaction as shown in the "advanced preview" window? And how many Inputs are shown? 
To view the "Advanced Preview", you can either click the "Advanced" button here:  or you can go into "Tools -> Preferences -> Transactions", and select the "Advanced Preview" option: 
You are probably using the minimum fee recommended by Electrum. You can lower the fee if you set the fee manually. To do so, click on "tools" at top of the window and then click on "preferences" and check "Edit fees manually". After that you can will able to send your coins even using 1 sat/byte.
That option is no longer available since the 4.0.1 release |
|
|
|
Seems like it might be stuck somewhere around here: bool GetMyExternalIP(unsigned int& ipRet)
{
CAddress addrConnect("72.233.89.199:80"); // whatismyip.com 198-200
...
Did you get the Windows Firewall popup asking to allow the program network access when you first ran the program? Perhaps it's been blocked in your firewall and now it is just stuck endlessly trying to contact a (non-existent) IP address and isn't timing out properly. |
|
|
|
I tried using -zeroconfspend=1 but it didin't work either. Do you guys know what im doing wrong?
AFAIK, there is no -zeroconfspend option... the only option similar to this for Bitcoin Core is -spendzeroconfchange, but that is for change outputs... not UTXOs from "incoming" transactions. The problem is that the sendtoaddress API option will only work with confirmed coins (or your unconfirmed change). Basically, the UTXOs that you can see using listunspent command (with default options)... and if those aren't available, then only unconfirmed UTXOs that we created and are then "trusted". If you want to send unconfirmed coins that were not created by your wallet, you'll need to manually create, sign and send a "raw" transaction. Refer: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3288#issuecomment-28939903 |
|
|
|
But honestly how then would dash give instructions for paper wallet on their official website? They support a website to create paper wallets and not some other type of software wallet.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly... they have links to a vast variety of wallets on their website: https://www.dash.org/downloads/Desktop wallets, mobile wallets, hardware wallets, web wallets.... and paper wallets. For the record, their paper.dash.org paperwallet generator is forked from bitaddress.org... it's functionally almost identical as far as I can tell, it's just been modified to have Dash "branding" and output Dash addresses instead of Bitcoin addresses  |
|
|
|
it's normal?
I don't see any obvious error or problem with that output... It is simply showing that it is updating with each new block that is received and parsed. Note how the "height" number is incrementing. Looks like it's a little over 26.5% synced... the "progress" value is the percentage (divided by 100)... so 0.265078 * 100 = 26.5078%. |
|
|
|
Delaying BTC payment until customer is satisfied with new Product
This is what escrow was designed for... customer gives BTC to escrow, merchant sends product to customer, escrow waits until customer is "satisfied" before sending funds to merchant. If customer attempts to keep without paying, escrow can release the funds to merchant If merchant doesn't send the item, or customer is not satisfied, escrow can return the funds to customer (after item is returned etc) Escrow is essentially the mediator in any disputes and their decision will determine who ends up with the funds. Can be achieved using a 2-of-3 multisig with customer, escrow and merchant... and using this method both the customer and merchant have "equal" risk (assuming the escrow is legit and not colluding with either party) The problem is finding a "trusted and independent" escrow. So is the best way to implement this via Child Pays For Parent chain of 20 transactions?
No, if, for whatever reason, you need to invalidate one of the transactions (ie. one person doesn't do their job as promised)... any transactions in the chain after it will also be invalidated as their inputs won't exist any more. |
|
|
|
So sad... this guy seemed almost genuine in his desire to be a better user... then this happened: User: Collier1Copy ( archived) It's quite unfortunate that Bitcoin had a less user-friendly system back then Since no seed phrases or any other means of restoring access to your wallet existed at that time, BTC addresses were recorded in a single “wallet.dat” file. And so If you misplace it or it simply break for instance, you loss everything as well. And in this case, a fortune.
Original ( archived) This is but one of the reminders that Bitcoin was a far less user-friendly system back in 2010. Since no seed phrases or any other means of restoring access to your wallet existed at the time, BTC addresses were recorded in a single “wallet.dat” file. If you lost it—due to a drive being misplaced or simply breaking, for example—you lost all your funds. And in this case, a fortune.
Real low effort text spin there... right from the article that was linked in the OP he was replying to |
|
|
|
The short answer is yes, that article is a very (over) simplified and somewhat inaccurate explanation of SegWit... |
|
|
|
I get not responding... I've deleted the Bitcoin folder in %AppData%
Yeah... mine said "(Not Responding)" for a few minutes, but it eventually came right and the app appeared to be working OK (ignoring the fact that it had 0 connections and only 1 block! ) Check the debug.log in the AppData/Roaming/Bitcoin folder and see if there is anything in there... when mine is "not responding"... it is stuck here: bound to addrLocalHost = 192.xxx.xxx.xxx:8333
Then, after it becomes responsive again, it outputs the following in the log:
ERROR: GetMyExternalIP() : connection to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:80 failed
RefreshListCtrl starting
RefreshListCtrl done
IRC :cherryh.freenode.net NOTICE * :*** Looking up your hostname...
ThreadSocketHandler started
ThreadMessageHandler started
....
|
|
|
|
|
Theoretically, it should be possible to sync up a full node (with indexing switched on)... and then write (or possibly find) a block parser that can read through the raw block files and extract the data you require.
Or instead of parsing the block files, you could try and run one of the open-source "block explorers" and then use the API to query your local block explorer to retrieve the block/transaction data and output as CSV.
Honestly not sure which way would be quickest/easiest... although have the node setup and synced along with block explorer would be "reusable" if you needed to update the data etc.
|
|
|
|
...but the newer versions of Windows (although i don't use them myself) have added the functionality 2 years ago. Wouldn't you know it... I didn't even look in notepad... hahaha  It even happily tells you that it has Unix EOL encoding! Been so long since I actually bothered using notepad  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
