You missed this gem from that post:
If only their actual grammar was "999,9 fine"

Did you even try his method? It works fine as it is written... you'll have a perfect quote that includes the author AND the correct datetime stamp... and will link back to the original post.


For instance... I just created this quote using o_e_l_e_o's method:

blockchain.com don't control or manage the wallets... they are effectively just "storage" for the encrypted wallet data. So they don't need to know when coins are received to be able to "credit" a user's balance. That happens when a user logs in and the wallet then queries the server for transactions etc. via API calls.

Custodial wallets like the exchanges etc that do manage user wallets, are most likely running custom software... not a "simple" Bitcoin Core node.

You can use any address you like... provided you have access to the private key.

Having said that, there is no real "standard" for signing using SegWit addresses at this point in time (even though Electrum will allow you to sign using Native Segwit "bc1" addresses)... so it will be easier for others to verify if you use an old legacy "1"-type address to sign with.

The generally accepted format for posting the signed message is:

For instance... something like this:

Be careful with "newlines" and "spaces"... one extra and the signature verification will fail! If you follow this format, other people can easily verify your message here: https://brainwalletx.github.io/#verify
But it only works with "1"-type addresses. So, if you use Electrum and a "bc1" address, users cannot use brainwalletx to verify... it will only be verifiable using Electrum.


Once you have created your signed message... you should post it in the "stake your address" thread... someone will quote and verify (and possibly archive) it, so that there is a permanent record of it for future reference.

Yes it would appear that you created an "imported, watch-only" wallet using the "1DzUp" address... if you did that by taking an address from Bitcoin Core, then theoretically the matching private key should be in Bitcoin Core.


You appear to have the wrong private key... as the private key you have imported has created a wallet with address: 1HRWtfdMVTkTajUTccPKnQb3PP4yH7MTr2 That is why it shows as 0 BTC and no transactions.

In Bitcoin Core, did you type: dumpprivkey "1DzUpRzr93r3EizQW58GDamgwgwAiZ2Vyc"

What output do you get if you type: getaddressinfo "1DzUpRzr93r3EizQW58GDamgwgwAiZ2Vyc"
Do you see a line that says "ismine: true"?

You have given us basically zero useful information, so at this point no-one is going to be able to help you with anything.

Do you have any Transaction IDs for the 2 different transactions?
Have you checked on a block explorer for those transactions and their status (confirmed vs. unconfirmed)?.
What were the two places you purchased bticoins from?
What were the 2 wallets you were attempting to transfer to (ie. web/exchange/desktop/hardware)?

You aren't "generating" a new receive address... you created a watching-only wallet that has exactly ONE address in it... you can actually see the address list in the background of your screenshot... it only has ONE address in the list. If you goto the "receive" tab, it will show you that address and ONLY that address. The "new" button will be greyed out, preventing you from generating a new receive address.

So, the important question is... From which wallet did you originally get the address "1DzUpRzr93r3EizQW58GDamgwgwAiZ2Vyc" from?

If that was from your Bitcoin Core, you should be able to follow the instructions the others have provided for getting the private key that corresponds to that address.
If it was from somewhere else, then you need to advised which wallet it was from so that the appropriate instructions can be provided.

Quickly? Stake has been encouraging spam for four months... These issues were raised back in February... The response from from the campaign? Nothing... even though Steve and the Stake team were made aware of the community's concerns at that time.

So, we're supposed to be thankful that they are finally attempting to do something about it?

Just a small note to say that the menu options in Bitcoin Core 0.18 have been changed slightly... so to get to the console window you now need to use the following menu options: "Window -> Console"

It doesn't necessarily make it any "better" or "worse" if it was a bought account. They were basically just thinking out loud

In any case, the point is somewhat moot... it has been proven that the wipro account committed plagiarism and I doubt the account qualifies for any sort of leniency. Furthermore, you are also guilty of ban evasion.


So, creating and posting in this thread reading the wipro ban was "ok"... but all of your other posts with Dell.India are "Ban Evasion". Consequently, your Dell.India account is likely to be banned as well.

It doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a "hack" and was "Social Engineering".

If a user did absolutely nothing at all, their funds would be safe. The thieves could not steal any funds using the richtext vulnerability. All they could do was show messages and clickable links. The attack required that the user download a piece of malware, install it and then run it. That could not be done remotely or automatically.

Granted, it was a very clever use of a non-obvious vulnerability... and, by all accounts, quite an effective one. Sure, you're more likely to trust a message in your "official" app... But one of the golden rules of crypto is "don't trust, verify!". So, if a user stopped to ask "Is that the official download repository?" and/or they followed recommended procedure and checked the digital signature of the downloaded file... the attack would fail.

It is a harsh (and expensive) lesson to learn... but the crypto call to arms of "Be your own bank"... also implies "Be your own bank's security department".

I don't blame the users and I don't blame the devs... I blame the "bad people"™ 

Given the transaction has been confirmed and you are sure the address was correct, then the only people who can help are the "alternative market"... they received your coins... and have since spent them.

If your balance has not been updated correctly, they're the only ones that can rectify that.

Electrum doesn't really get a "cut" (possibly some small affiliate fee?)... the fees go directly to TrustedCoin, refer here for current fees: https://api.trustedcoin.com/#/electrum-help

At current rates... 0.00005 BTC/tx is about US$0.39c per transaction

He was theorising that you might have bought the "wipro" account... as you claimed "No I did not plagiarize anywhere"... And yet, there were at least 3 different instances where you have obviously copy/pasted posts.

The reason he thought this might be the case was that there have been a couple of instances in recent history, where a user has claimed that they bought an account, and the previous owner(s) committed plagiarism prior to the account being purchased... and they had no knowledge of the plagiarism.

I don't think a negative tag is appropriate for this sort of behaviour (at most perhaps a neutral tag)... and I'm glad that OP seems to have removed it.

Given that they aren't just spamming in non-related threads and they appear to be sticking to "Help wanted" type threads... Personally, I don't have an issue with it. They don't even seem to be necro-posting, but replying within a day or 2 of the OPs... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So, just to clarify, you were able to get Electrum running with the Ubuntu Mate distro?

So, by that logic... Chrome/Firefox/IE have all been "hacked"... which explains all the popups from "Microsoft Support" telling me that my computer has a virus and I need to call 1-800-123-4567 to get help? or the browser on my phone telling me that I need to install some "ram cleaner" to make my phone run faster?

It isn't/wasn't a "hack". It is simply "bad people"™ abusing functionality to trick users into doing something they shouldn't... aka "Social Engineering".

I use Bitcoin Core 0.18 and Armory 0.96.5 on Windows 10 and it all seems to work fairly well.

I simply start the Bitcoin Core GUI (it's configured with a datadir of E:\Bitcoin)... and after it is up and running and synced, I start Armory (I've left it to just use the default Armory locations for it's databases etc, but that is easy enough to change). So, my settings in Armory look like this:



You will also need a "bitcoin.conf" file in your Bitcoin "datadir" that has the following line in it:

That will enable the RPC component in Bitcoin Core and allow Armory to communicate with your Bitcoin Core instance correctly... In the Bitcoin Core GUI "network" settings (Settings -> Options -> Network), you need to check the "Allowing Incoming Connections" option:

Just wanted to add that you might also run into issues using different versions for watching-only (0.96.4) and offline (0.96.1) wallets... Not sure if that is the root cause of the "passphrase not correct issue", but users have definitely had issues in the past using different versions.

Having said that, as long as you have the paper backup (as mentioned, the fact it shows as valid is a very good sign!), you should be able to restore your wallet and simply create a new passphrase.

You can get the "ads" removed from Google by reporting them... to get the sites taken down, you're better off reporting the sites to their domain registrar and/or hosting provider.