Do you see my concern with storing encrypted keys now? It leaves traces/evidence behind. It has to, as these encrypted files need to exist somewhere for me to be able to decrypt them to get my keys out. Sure, you could try and hide all your keys around multiple email accounts... or stored on different encrypted devices in different locations... but there is still tangible/physical evidence that these devices/files exist and that means they could be discovered. It also completely negates the "convenience" of your method, having stuff spread everywhere.
With a seed (+ passphrase)... I can store it encrypted, and if my email/cloud backup is hacked, and they find my encrypted seed, I can hand over the password to decrypt the seed... The seed on it's own will generate a valid wallet and valid addresses that I can put some coins in as a decoy (or even for use as a relatively secure hot wallet). However, my main stash of coins can be hidden using the SAME seed in combination with a passphrase. This will generate a completely different wallet with completely different addresses.
You contradicted yourself within 2 paragraphs.First, you said you are concerned with storing encrypted keys as it leaves traces/evidence behind, so your hardware wallet leaves no traces/evidence. Then, you said you can store encrypted seeds in email/cloud/bank vault/etc which leaves plentiful traces/evidence behind, but then you said they are hidden! My goodness, what lies you are telling. No, I'm not telling lies... it would appear that you are still not understanding how a seed + passphrase combination works  Encrypted Private key = traces/evidence... Encrypted Seed = traces/evidence... However, the advantage of the seed system over an encrypted private key is this: Handover password to encrypted private key = private key exposed, all coins controlled by that key exposed. Handover password to encrypted seed = seed exposed... ONLY the default wallet is exposed... all other wallets generated using passphrases from that seed are invisible/hidden with no traces/evidenceYou cannot prove the existence of ANY of these hidden wallets... as there is NO EVIDENCE OR TRACE of them anywhere... they are only generated by a passphrase that exists purely inside your head. Hopefully, that helps clear things up for you. |
|
|
|
|
You can export private keys from Electrum... so you can just sweep (or import) them into another wallet to regain access to your coins should every single Electrum Server suddenly vanish.
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you downloaded the "standalone" version of Electrum, instead of the "installer". There are 3 different versions for windows: 1. Standalone - This is just an .exe that can live in any directory you like and you can run it from there... (wallet and blockheader data stored by default in %appdata%\Electrum) 2. Installer - This will run a proper installer and install to C:\Program Files\Electrum (wallet and blockheader data stored by default in %appdata%\Electrum) 3. Portable - Same as #1, you can run from any directory, but the wallet and blockchain data is stored in the same directory where you run the .exe from You need to find where you downloaded the .exe to... and run it from there (or go get the installer version... it will use the wallet you've already created  ) |
|
|
|
The bitcoinfee21 fees are pitch perfect, the problem you have is that you have received multiple payments on a single address which increases your number of inputs thus increasing your transaction size, so that's why i recommend everyone to never use same address for receiving more than 1 transaction. I always get quick confirmations when i use the rates provided by both bitfee and bitcoinfee21.
You realise it makes no difference if you receive 100 payments to 1 address... or 1 payment to 100 address... you'll still end up with a large amount of inputs. The trick is to NOT receive a lot of small "dust" sized payments... if possible, don't withdraw funds from services until you can get a payment of at least 0.001 as an absolute minimum. Even that is a bit low... 0.005 or 0.01 would be better. So if you're fauceting or cloud mining or <insert micro payment activity here>... avoid getting small payouts! |
|
|
|
Yeah... your first transaction has 0 fee... so that's not likely to go anywhere fast... and the 2nd one spends the output from the first... so that cannot confirm until the first one does What wallet did you use to send these? You need to make sure your wallet is not rebroadcasting them and wait for the transactions to drop from the mempool (could take up to 14 days if no one rebroadcasts them)... then you should be able to spend the coins again. |
|
|
|
ps i also tried the rebroadcast the transaction by getting the getrawtransaction and using blockchain.info/pushtx, this gave me the message: Validation Error: Error #-26: 258: txn-mempool-conflict
The original transactionid with the way to low miners fee is: e57f73265506025cf486d4d51c959b5ede9117dddba6bc8a6764875ae4edd6b4
The new transactionid is: 6d50925ccae27615480b0a9b11f7be3391f2805a09b343d93d0adcd7ffeb601b
Looks like your new transaction got confirmed The reason for the "258: txn-mempool-conflict" was due to your new transaction using at least one input that was in the first transaction. Using the "walletbroadcast=0" just stops your wallet attempting to rebroadcast transactions... it doesn't (and can't) remove transactions from the network... So your original transaction was still in the mempool, even though you had abandoned it from your local wallet... and when you tried to send the new transaction, it got rejected as a "double spend"... |
|
|
|
MultiBit Classic... or MultiBit HD? I assume by your use of "wallet words" that you are using MultiBit HD? Where did you get this update? As the software hasn't been updated in a very long time... and has in fact been discontinued by the developer: https://www.multibit.org/ |
|
|
|
|
If the number of blocks is 480,748 or higher, then chances are that Bitcoin Core is fully synced. If it is less than this number... then something isn't right.
Post your logs using pastebin.com
|
|
|
|
Can you confirm what version you are using? 2.6.3 is before the fee slider even existed... it was added in 2.7.0  # Release 2.7.0 (Oct 2 2016)
...
* Qt GUI (Desktop):
- A fee slider is visible in the in send tab
- The Address tab is hidden by default, can be shown with Ctrl-A
- UTXOs are displayed in the Address tab
I assume you mean 2.8.3? In any case... it is also doing this in the latest version.. 2.9.3:   I suggest you report the issue here: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues |
|
|
|
Okay thank you. So what can I do now? Is it possible that my transaction will stuck forever? Apparently I'm not the only one with a 80 satoshi/byte transaction. What can I do?
Try using: https://pool.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/Simply input your TransactionID and fill in the captcha and submit... They only accept 100 transaction per hour, and they reset the 100 slot limit on the hour... so if you get "submissions beyond limit" error, try again immediately after the hour rolls around. |
|
|
|
|
First, the numbers that bitcoinfees.21.co shows are estimations based on network load and mempool transactions at that exact moment in time.
So, as you've discovered, if 20k transactions suddenly get dumped on the network, all bets are off and those estimations will be very inaccurate.
As for how miner's prioritise transactions... There is no set method or algorithm. Some will prioritise transactions that they are making to pool members or made by pool members... Or people who pay (high tx fees or paid "accelerators")... Or transactions that then allow them to claim large child fees (child pays for parent etc)... Etc
I'm sure some prioritise older tx's... And I'm sure some probably just continually prioritise the largest fees possible.
|
|
|
|
Just modify whatever values you're setting as the output value to their withdraw address and output value to your change address. Subtract the network free from customer output... And then add that amount to your change address output value. That will effectively "transfer" the network fee from you to them. Ie current setup: Input: 1 BTC outputToCustomerAddr: 0.1 outputToChangeAddr: 0.8999 Fee = 0.0001 Change to: Input: 1 BTC outputToCustomerAddr: (0.1-0.0001) = 0.0999 outputToChangeAddr: (0.8999+0.0001) = 0.9000 Fee: 0.0001 Note: fee doesn't need to be fixed... It's just an example |
|
|
|
Restored with seed into Electron and now it shows unconfirmed on my 6 bch. When I launch block explorer I get "sorry the page you are looking for could not be found"
Thanks for your patience in this matter.
Help please
You'll probably have to manually copy the transaction ID/address to a BCH block explorer... I haven't checked the code, but I suspect the electron Devs didn't change the "view on block explorer" links and they're all BTC only services... So if it is trying to look up BCH transactions it'll fail As for your coins being unconfirmed in BCH, it sounds like you're connected to a BTC server instead of BCH server. Check the Network settings in Electron as previously advised. If block# is higher than 480,000 you're on the BTC network |
|
|
|
The first word in the bip39 word list is "abandon." It has 2048 words. Mycelium uses this word list.
I don't use electrum, but I think the following is true:
The first word in the electrum word list is "abbey." It has 1626 words.
To the best of my knowledge, Electrum and Mycelium use different word lists. If that's true, then the walllets' seeds are not compatible.
Can a knowledgeable Electrum user make an authoritative statement regarding that wallet's seeds and word list?
What version of Electrum are you looking at? The current (English) word list is 2048 words... And I'm fairly sure it's the same as the BIP39 word list: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/lib/wordlist/english.txtHaving said that, Electrum uses a different algorithm for calculating the seed from the words... So an Electrum seed phrase most probably won't be useable with other wallets. Electrum however is able to import BIP39 seed words by ticking the "BIP39 seed" box during import (as per the post above) Also, as of v2.9.2, Electrum supports custom derivation paths for BIP39 imports, so it is able to import from pretty much any BIP39 wallet |
|
|
|
It shouldn't be... it sounds like either the password you are entering is incorrect, or the file is corrupted so the decryption fails and the script detects this as an "incorrect" password  Which file are you attempting to run the script on? I think you may be using the wrong script... walletkeys.py was made for extracting keys from a wallet file... |
|
|
|
|
Seems like Core is syncing nicely... so it's just that ArmoryDB is having some issues. Have you tried the "rebuild and rescan databases" option in Armory "Help" menu?
|
|
|
|
I do get an error"com.google.bitcoin.store. unreadablewalletException could not read wallet".
done...
You got that error when you attempted to use my utility? I'm not sure how you got that from my Python script... when that is a java based error... hmmmm You downloaded this: https://github.com/HardCorePawn/extract_mbc_keys/raw/master/extract_mbc_keys.zipExtracted it... ran the .exe file and selected your wallet file... and you got that error? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
