It will be faster to use ElectronCash than to do a reindex... The coins should show in ElectronCash almost instantly when you import your key.

Are you wanting access to BCC to dump them? or are you intending on using them long term? That might also influence your decision as to the best wallet to use.

Are you on the right website? current version is 0.96.1... The correct place for downloading is here: https://btcarmory.com

(note: bitcoinarmory.com is the "old" website and is no longer updated due to a change in "ownership" of Armory)

You mean it can't be found on a blockexplorer like blockchain.info?

Did you try the getrawtransaction/sendrawtransaction like I suggested? If so, what output did you get from sendrawtransaction?

That is exactly what your issue is... your Bitcoin ABC is on the BTC blockchain... this won't work at all

Did you have an install of Bitcoin Core that you copied the blocks from after the fork or something? To see the BCC in ABC, you'll need to try reindexing (or possibly have to resync from scratch as I don't think you can just remove the incompatible blocks)...

Your other option is to just use Electron Cash... and import your key there... you won't need to download the whole blockchain...

OK... that is a good start, it means that your BCC is still attached to the address/private key of your paper wallet.

In ABC, is it fully synced and up to block #478902?  ("Help -> Debug Window -> Information")

How exactly did you import your paper wallet private key into ABC?

You need to modify the "if stoponwin" part of the code as well... which you haven't shown. You can change the "if stoponwin" to "if resetonwin" and change stoponwin to resetonwin... NOTE: This assumes there are no other "stoponwin" criteria being used/set...

try using "getrawtransaction TRANSACTIONID" on the "Help -> Debug Window -> Console"...

then copy/paste the HEX code that it returns... and use "sendrawtransaction HEXCODE"

It seems like your transaction has been rejected by the network for some reason

check your "BCC address" here: www.blockdozer.com or here: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20cash/explorer/

Does it show a positive balance?

Are you sure about that?

The "edit fees manually" option is still available in the preferences... and the text box still shows on the "send" tab... so you can easily override whatever the dynamic fee calculator comes up with


Note: if you're going to mess about with the fee manually, I highly recommend use of the "Preview" button to make sure you've got your calculation correct and that the transaction size and fee rate are as you expect them to be before you send your transaction.

You'll probably need to resync your Core from scratch as it is likely that your ABC install has "corrupted" the blocks in your Core data directory by writing BCC blocks into it.

If you want to continue to use Core and ABC, you'll need to take steps to separate them to prevent this happening again. For instance, use different "datadir" for each application to keep blocks folders and wallet files separate.

I'm still not understanding why you're even sending coins to an exchange? Is your focus on exchanges simply because you want to dump your BCC before it dies? If so, then your desire for "free money" is your issue.

You'll either have to work for it by sending numerous transactions to different exchanges and absorb the costs involved (time and fees) in an effort to protect your privacy... or simply transfer it all in one go and accept the hit to your privacy...

I would think the best way is to probably consolidate all your funds into a mixer... You either do it in one hit and link all your addresses... or you do it over numerous transactions (maybe groups of 5-10?)...

Granted, mixing isn't a 100% perfect solution and, with higher level analysis, it can be possible to track coins in and out of a mixer with a degree of certainty... but it'll stop your average joe from being able to track your coins.

Also, the lack of BCC compatible mixers might be problematic.

Sounds like you may be a little confused as to how the fork and splitting coins works...

To access your BCC, you need to know where your coins were on 1st August when the fork happened. Were your coins in Bitcoin Core or were they in Electrum? When did you install Core and when did you move your funds from Core to Electrum?

Have you tried cloning the repo and compiling it yourself or running from source?

They've put in a couple of patches since 2.9.2 to fix Offline Signing:
https://github.com/fyookball/electrum/commit/17c34fce7c8de5475a57c3b3d9d3ca0e4d949347
https://github.com/fyookball/electrum/commit/e8e37beeb46de6bba831a814c08187a921c55473

So either clone and compile/run, or wait until next release and it should work.

Wait... what?? The fraction of the 5 btc not spent will go to either a completely new "change" address, totally unrelated to all my other 19 addresses... or if I choose to not use change addresses as per the functionality offered in several wallets, the wallet will send the unspent amount back to the original address... which is also totally unrelated (from an external point of view) to all my other 19 addresses.

You have read BIP32 and BIP44 and understand about "external" (aka receive) and "internal" (aka change) addresses right? Pretty much all the hardware wallets that I'm aware of implement BIP44... and keep receive and change addresses separated as per the specification, that is to say using Derivation Paths of m/44'/0'/0'/0 and m/44'/0'/0'/1 respectively.

Most of them are also smart enough to prevent address re-use so while you could follow a chain of transactions that start with one 5 btc input... it'll never touch any of the other inputs (or their chain of transactions) until such time as you don't have enough coins in a single input to be able to send the amount you want to send and it needs to use 2 or more inputs.

All of which is relatively moot for "cold storage" anyway... and works pretty much the same way as your "paper" wallet system.

Like I've been saying all along... your system is pretty much the same as using a hardware wallet, without the convenience of being able to spend easily if required... or sign messages... or use on an online machine while maintaining security... or use easily with a mobile phone wallet... or use as a FIDO U2F secure key...

But hey, you're happy with it... and you saved yourself $100.

Try here: http://blockdozer.com/insight/tx/send

I haven't actually used it... so can't comment as to whether or not it works... but blockdozer is one of the only BCC blockexplorers at the present time.

Errrr why are you sending all your BTC to an exchange?

The new BTC wallet can be any BTC wallet (ie. a software wallet on your PC, a hardware wallet, a paper wallet or an exchange etc)... where you send it is up to you. The point is to put your BTC on a different seed/keys, so that should the BCC wallet you choose to use be "Bad"™ and steal your seed/keys... the thief will only be able to access your BCC, as your BTC is already some place else.

Honestly... fees are nowhere near as bad as they were a month or two ago when there was like 150K unconfirmed transactions... there are currently only 10-15K unconfirmed transactions in the mempool... the VAST majority of these are right at the bottom of the fee scale: https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx

Most transactions are paying less than 20-40 sats/byte fee... theoretically, any fee higher than that should get you in a block relatively quickly.

bitcoinfees.21.co isn't as relevant as it was when the mempool was flooded and "average" fees were like 350+ sats/byte... but it is still useful info... Electrum's dynamic fees might be a little higher as it seems to err on the side of caution.

If your BTC was in a wallet where you have access to the private keys when Block #478558 was mined on the BTC network... then you should be able to "claim" an equal amount of BCC regardless of what you did with your BTC after this time. You could have sold all your BTC for DOGE coin, or sent it all to a BTC burner address or spent it all on blackjack and hookers.

The BTC and BCC chains split at Block #478559... so the two chains share a common history up until Block #478558.

You don't need your coins back in your Mycelium wallet to start... in fact, you're technically safer if they are NOT in your Mycelium wallet (and you never use that wallet again and generate a completely new wallet with new keys)... that way, only your BCC is in danger if the BCC wallet you use to claim your BCC is rouge and steals your keys

I know this... but you seem to insist that your method is completely trustless... I'm simply pointing out, that it is not as you are trusting WinRAR or <insert encryption software here>. This directly counters what you consider to be advantages of your methods. Namely:
- maximum security (free of 3rd-party trust) - It isn't... you are trusting a 3rd party, with closed sources at this point in time.
- maximum trustless - Again, you are trusting a 3rd party.



That's my whole point... I (and others) have said several times now... that no method is 100% secure... but you seem to think yours is... who is not being objective again?



And I also pointed out how having multiple copies of encrypted keys spread about the place in emails and on physical media leaves evidence behind that there is something hidden... whereas dummy wallets from seeds/passphrases do not. There is no evidence of anything existing other than the default wallet from the seed. You keep talking about being able to implementing a similar system using your method... but then just imply that I am unintelligent because I don't know how to do it... so would you care to enlighten us? I'm actually genuinely interested.



I know what change addresses are used for and how they work... but I'm not sure why you think that hardware wallets only contain "a bunch of change addresses that reshuffle your .. btc with every transaction".

If I have 20x 5 BTC inputs in my hardware wallet and I spend 5 BTC like in your example... how are the rest of my 19 inputs being reshuffled?



You mean where I said "Is it "better" than a hardware wallet? A viable alternative sure, but better? I'd say that is somewhat debatable and likely dependent on the use case(s) of a given person"

You seem to be failing to grasp that I am not debating whether or not your system works... I've never once claimed that your system doesn't work... What I'm pointing out is that it is NOT 100% secure as you seem to believe... and that it is NOT 100% trustless (as currently implemented) and... in my opinion it is NOT better than a hardware wallet for the reasons I have explained.



You mean where I have repeatedly stated that NO METHOD is 100% safe?? Unlike you and your magical "100% secure" method... subjectivity much?



Why? I'm not a hacker... I never claimed to be.

You claimed that a 24 word seed is easier to brute force than your 20+ alphanumeric+symbol password... I'm simply pointing out that you are incorrect and that seeds are in fact a lot stronger than a standard password. The maths already proves the case. But maybe you can just tell me what the seed is to my wallet and rest the case?



Seriously? Now you want to make this a theological debate? According to those verses... you shouldn't even be using cold storage...

You guys have heard of the "preview" button right? You can set up a transaction and see what it is going to do:


same address listed twice...


Generates multiple outputs to that address as expected:


NOTE: green = output, yellow = change


Also, an output only increases a transaction size by about 1/5th the amount that an input does... 34 bytes vs. 148 bytes... so the difference in fees will be relatively minor... even at "high" 300 sats/byte it would only be an extra 10,000 sats.