Have a merit point for the effort... it's nice to see people trying to create products/services related to crypto and crypto products... although I suspect, as other have mentioned, the price point might be a bit much for most considering it's basically the same cost as a Nano S and roughly half of a Nano X (before any promo's or discounts).

Best of luck.

Me too... I'm still struggling with the "OP imported 5 keys, ended up with a wallet with 10s/100s of addresses" part.

In all honesty, it sounds like the wallet file is corrupted (KeyError crashes, inability to send funds or see private keys etc), and the OP has unfortunately sent coins to addresses that are stored in the wallet file but the private keys for these addresses are not or the private keys are corrupted

In my opinion, it is going to be very hard to troubleshoot and/or say definitively what the actual problem is without someone with the technical knowledge taking a look at the wallet file... maybe a screen show with the "secret" stuff redacted?

@Lexx2k... Is your wallet file password protected and/or fully encrypted? Or are you able to view the basic structure of the wallet file in a text editor?

Note that it only displays the QRCode... There is no functionality to save or store the generated QRCode(s)... and (on Android 10 at least), the Google Authenticator app actually prevents screenshots from being taken, so you can't try and save the QRCode that way either.

So, without a 2nd device handy to scan the QRCode off the screen, it's practically a useless feature as far as "backup" is concerned!

Honestly, you're going to struggle if your starting point is low. Anything you could likely make by trading etc, is likely to be eaten away by exchange/withdrawal/transaction fees... and one bad trade could wipe you out.

And anything offering a "high" return is likely going to be very risky.

Do you have any marketable skills that you can offer others on the services board (or on fiverr etc)?

There is an app called "Authenticator Plus" by Mufri: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mufri.authenticatorplus

It's not open source as far as I know, but it provides support for backing up your data to cloud services or encrypted local backups. Also, sadly, it hasn't been updated since December 2018, so I can't really recommend it any more


I like Aegis.. although I occasionally have issues with it generating "invalid" OTPs I'm not sure if it is a 'time sync' issue... but if I look at the code in Aegis and the one in Authenticator Plus, quite often they're different and the one in Authenticator Plus works and the one in Aegis does not??!?

Exactly... The VIAbtc accelerator has an absolute minimum of 10 sats/byte... if your fee is under this, it is not eligible for their acceleration service.

Basically, the best options are:

1. Use a proper fee for your situation (if you can wait hours/days, use whatever you like, if you need it "now", use an appropriate fee as per the current network conditions)
2. Use RBF (or CPFP)

Trying to rely on "accelerators" is a bad plan.

Ah yes... the old "forget the 'label' parameter" trick!

I was using:

Which of course, is equivalent to:
because the 'rescan' parameter defaults to true... #facepalm


If you use:
To try and import with the empty 'label' and without rescan, it'll work!

You've been told several times... This is impossible!

If a passphrase was set, the "secret" wallet data (ie. private keys) has been encrypted using AES-256-CBC. If the passphrase was relatively complex (ie. 10+ 'random' chars using characters+numbers+symbols) and you have no idea what it was, then you can't possibly hope to bruteforce it.

However, if you have "some" idea of what the passphrase may have been (or you know 100% that it was relatively short or "simple"), you could potentially use "hashcat" and try to bruteforce the passphrase...

I would suggest using google to search for "hashcat bitcoin core"... alternatively, contact Dave @ walletrecoveryservices.com. They've been doing that sort of thing for a long time, have had a lot of success and have a good reputation. I believe that their standard fee is 20%. You can read their forum post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=240779.0

Only, that isn't how it appears to work... As tested by myself (and nc50lc), once I've clicked "Max" (or used "!"), it will max out the amount going to the single output... if I change the fee, it modifies the output amount appropriately so it is still sending "everything - fee"... there is no extra output generated.

Is your wallet creating the extra output when "max" is used? In which case, there seems to be some sort of inconsistency in how things are working...

If you see a scam... and, more importantly, you have proof/evidence that it is a scam... then you can create a new post in the Scam Accusations board.

Please make sure that you read this thread first!: Scam Report Format (Use it to make scam reports properly) and then format your posts accordingly, providing all the relevant information. Don't forget to use https://archive.is/ to make archives of posts etc so the scammer can't just delete the posts!

Also, if you see blatant scam posts in other peoples threads (like linking to malware or fake websites), you can click the "Report to moderator" link on the post. That will hopefully get the post deleted and the user banned.

Just for the record... the 2 transactions were NOT sent at the exact same time. The timestamp you are seeing:


... is the timestamp of the block that they were both included in:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/638459


(NOTE: this timestamp is in UTC... and I believe you are in UTC-10 based on the timezone conversion from July 10th 01:41 UTC -> July 9th 15:41 as shown on your Trezor transaction screenshot)

---

However, if we look at the 2 transactions... we have:

Payment to Bitrefill: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/86d9576d267330fe19dad050b17b67251c14c1c4b2c73f7225b6128ab42f67f7

This was received by blockchain.com at: 2020-07-10 00:58 UTC



Funds being "Stolen":

This was received by blockchain.com at: 2020-07-10 01:27 UTC



So the 2nd transaction actually seems to have happened nearly 30 mins after the bitrefill transaction was broadcast.


Likely your seed was compromised in some way when you accessed the fake website... did you enter your seed at all?

The reason?


While you paid "46 sat/Byte"... because it's using legacy inputs/outputs... your transaction fee is only 11.5 sats/Weight Unit... and this is what has been happening on the network in recent hours:


Even given the relatively high fee, you're still several blocks worth of transactions from the tip:



Blockchair is calculating your "priority" as 14031...

Once, things settle down, the transaction should confirm... or you can try using RBF ("Replace-by-Fee") to increase the fee as your transaction appears to be RBF-enabled and you are using Electrum.

Have you installed Python 2.7 or Python 3?

I suspect that most of these older scripts that you're trying to run will NOT work with Python 3... so make sure you have downloaded and installed Python 2.7 from here: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-2717/

Tbh, it was more the mistakes from VVD and Alisson that cost us the game today

We started brilliantly, and then just faded away... Like others mentioned earlier, fatigue really seems to be taking it's toll... and even though it is affecting everyone, I think for the LFC they seem to be thinking "Job Done" because the title is already secured

Had high hopes for breaking the 100pt barrier... not going to happen now

I'm a little late to the party... but thanks for the hilarious quotes from the last month or 2...

My personal fav was this one:

Thanks, Capt. Obvious!  

That's unfortunate that 4.0.2 won't run on your current hardware, but the good news is that this issue doesn't seem to be a problem in 4.0.2.

When you use "Spend From" in 4.0.2... it actually tells you that coin control is active and how many UTXOs you have selected/are including:




One last thought... have you considered running a Virtual Machine, like Oracle VirtualBox or similar, on your Macbook and loading up something like Ubuntu and see if you can get 4.0.2 working in that? Might be worth testing before dropping $$$ on a new Macbook.

If you only imported 5 keys, then you should only have 5 addresses in Electrum. If you have more than this, then it sounds like your wallet file might be corrupt?

Which addresses did you send the funds to? Do you still have these addresses in your Bitcoin Core?

Once you prune blocks, you will no longer be able to import private keys into Bitcoin Core... but you won't be able to "rescan" the blockchain to find any transaction info. (Thanks LoyceV! )


This is because, as per the error message, "rescan" is disabled once you prune blocks... as the block data is effectively "missing" once the blocks get pruned and there cannot be rescanned. If you prune and then later need to import a private key, you'd need to redownload the entire blockchain.


You will of course, still be able to export you private keys from Bitcoin Core and import them into a Lite/SPV wallet etc.

Electrum doesn't generate anything if you are importing private keys. When you say they look "completely not same" can you please provide specific examples? Does Bitcoin Core look like "bc1xxx..." etc... and the ones in Electrum look like "1xxx..." That is to say, the Bitcoin core ones start with "bc1" and Electrum starts with "1"?


It honestly sounds like you have downloaded a fake version of Electrum or something... but the fact that the funds are still showing as "unspent" also indicates that they haven't been "stolen"

yes... depending on how you import the private keys... If you just import the "WIF" key that was exported from Bitcoin Core, Electrum will default to "P2PKH"... which generates legacy addresses that start with a "1".

As per the Electrum import info prompt:

So... did your addresses in Bitcoin Core start with a "1", "3" or "bc1"?

If, in 100 years time, computer hardware and network/storage technology are still be at current day levels then it might be an issue... but that isn't really likely. There are constant advances being made in computational power, network bandwidth and storage tech.


No. The best you can do is "Pruning" as suggested by ranochigo... it still requires that you download the whole blockchain, but it means you don't have to store the entire blockchain at once as it discards older blocks after the pruning limit (user definable) is reached.

There are certain limitations with "pruned" wallets, so you do sacrifice some functionality by going down this path... (ie. importing private keys etc)


At the end of the day, the best option, if you don't want to or can't download/store the full blockchain, is to find a reliable and "trustworthy" SPV/Lite client.