I am having problems with android wallets on TWO separate devices the wallet get stuck with the "starting the engines" message.
Any clues for solution?
No, really, I'm starting to get worried to see that I'm not able to start my lite wallets on DIFFERENT DEVICES. This is something which absolutely should not happen. On one device I have the latest wallet and on the other one the previous one and both of them are stuck with the "starting the engines" message. WTF is that? I have spent some time in Slack today and the guy there had no clue. After 2 days suddenly today I have managed to enter the wallet but when I have later rebooted the phone and tried to enter again I had the same problem again. Someone should really look in this issue. What device(s) and version(s) of Android are you attempting to run the client on? |
|
|
|
Looks like i have done it ! woohooo
I will send you your tips today sir and thank you again. hopefully its enough to keep you on retainer for future security questions lol
Thanks... that was mighty generous of you  (privacy) I put all my coins into one address some say not to however I didnt want to risk typing in another address when my test was already successful. How do I split them up when sending so ppl cant see my true balance ? I send the amounts to my celluim wallet first ? can they track it back to my trezor ? or do i break them up into addresses on my trezor first.
It is probably going to be tough to split them up yourself in such a way that a determined person will not be able to track them, given that the blockchain is a public ledger... You could use a Bitcoin Mixer (see the sig  ), they support multiple "forward" addresses (I'm sure other mixers do as well)... so you would generate a bunch of new Trezor addresses, then send a transaction with all your coins from OriginalTrezorAddress, and say X BTC to NewAddressA, Y BTC to NewAddressB, Z BTC to NewAddressC etc etc... If you just do it yourself... it would be easy for someone to see the coins go from OriginalTrezorAddress to these other addresses... with the mixer, all the transactions to the NewAddresses will come from random addresses with no link to you (in theory anyway ) My electrum hardware wallet i tried to send some from it and it just ask for output from trezor (couldnt find the output thing on my trezor) ?? so being a watch only i cant send from this wallet correct has to be from my actual trezor ?
Always use the same computer that has my electrum hard wallet to send with my trezor ? so it will always update and i can view my watch only wallet. Or can i have the watch only wallet on multiple computers and check whenever. Still kinda of confused with the watch only wallet
The "watch only" wallet is exactly that... it just allows you to view the addresses/transactions/balance... but you CANNOT spend from it... there are no private keys stored in it... so it is safe to have it on an online (or even public) computers from a security of wallet perspective... you just need to be mindful of the privacy implications So the workflow to send, is to plug the Trezor into the computer with Electrum. Then create the transaction and attempt to send, it should ask for authentication via the Trezor (showing address and amount etc)... you do the verification and the transaction gets signed on the Trezor device... and it gives the signed transaction back to Electrum to broadcast. Electrum will be able to update WITHOUT the trezor attached and even if you send from elsewhere... it has the "Master Public Key" so it knows all your Trezor addresses (hence the privacy implications mentioned above) and will be able to receive updates from the blockchain about your transactions Yes, you can have watching only wallet on as many computers as you like. Security is not the issue with doing this... privacy is. also on electrum it has a box that says REPLACEABLE should i have that checked or no ?
Usually a good idea to check that... it allows "Replace-By-Fee" (aka RBF)... whereby you can easily bump up the fee on a transaction that you have sent, without having to resort to trying double spend or "Child Pays For Parent"/CPFP etc, in the event that your transaction gets stuck for low fees my core wallet balance is zero can i throw all my usbs with backout in garbage now ? its way safer on my trezor and no need for core any more ?
Assuming your transactions are all confirmed, then yes... Core is empty and no longer needed. I'd keep a backup of the wallet.dat file ("just in case")... but you probably don't need the Core application or the downloaded blockchain data any more. the only thing that can lose my coins now is loss of the trezor seed correct ?
Yes, that seed is now the key to ALL your coins... even if your Trezor were to be stolen/lost/damaged tomorrow, you can still recover all your coins with just the seed. So, make sure you have a nice secure, safe backup of that seed... for the amounts you're dealing with... a safety deposit box at your bank may be a wise investment. I can can use my trezor on any computer now with less worry about being infected ? If i use my trezor on a diff computer do i need to download electrum hardwallet to that computer again ?
Yes... the private keys are safely locked inside the Trezor and never exposed to the host computer. If on a diff computer, you can use whatever wallet you want that is compatible with Trezor |
|
|
|
ELECTRUM or MULTIBIT wallets are not safe in this case?
I would also like to know . Thx
Electrum is fine... it provides easy access to private keys if required, and is regularly updated and supported. The dev has even created instructions for how to "split" your coins if required in the increasingly unlikely event that a hard fork happens... ref: http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/hardfork.htmlMultiBit (both Classic and HD) on the other hand... while they both provide access to private keys... should NOT be used for other non-fork related reasons... Classic is no longer maintainted and is VERY outdated... especially when it comes to fees. HD has some fairly major bugs that were reported as early as March/April and are STILL unresolved.... no updates visible on the code since March... and even the devs are saying to use Breadwallet and/or Simple Bitcoin Wallet to "rescue" your coins when their wallet craps out and you get the dreaded "Password did not unlock the wallet" issue. Additionally, HD does not provide "easy" access to your private keys... (Although it is "Seed" based and you can use the BIP39 mnemonic code converter to get access to keys: https://iancoleman.github.io/bip39/) |
|
|
|
|
They can't change the payment information once it has been signed by the first party... That is the whole point of MultiSig. So the user would need to be running a compromised version of Electrum, which somehow modifies the transaction after you click send and before it gets signed... This should be easy enough to guard against.
If TrustedCoin key gets stolen, they would still need one of the users keys to do anything useful with it...
So you either need to hack a users key AND their 2FA... Or hack the user key AND TrustedCoin's system... Not necessarily impossible, but not exactly what one would call trivial tasks.
It is perfectly fair for them to charge a fee for providing a useful service.
|
|
|
|
The reason the price increased is because you "underpaid"... so they add a second miners fee (as now they have to send your TWO payments to Gyft), basically they want you to cover THEIR miners fee for them to transfer the payment to the merchant. Notice how the firstscreenshot shows 1x transaction @ 0.000323 and the second shows 2x transactions. If your wallet says "0.003195 withdrawn" then that is the root cause of the problem. Your wallet is NOT adding miners fee... it is subtracting the fee from the amount sent. Looks like your wallet used 0.000623 as a fee, which is even higher than the fee BitPay used during refund... so rather than moan about them deducting fees during refund (0.000496), I'd be asking questions about your wallet fees!!?! i understand miner fees. There is nothing that said miner fees would be subtracted from my net withdrawal
That is an issue with your wallet or wallet provider (I'm guessing it is a web wallet?)... They subtracted the fee... NOT BitPay... What wallet are you using?  |
|
|
|
Well I have no other machine where I can create a cold storage. So I created my wallet on that machine where I use Internet. Is this risky?
It can be if you don't take adequate precautions... Encrypt wallet using strong password, don't visit "dodgy" websites, keep antivirus/antimalware up to date, run regular scans... You can create "offline" storage using a single computer and two USB thumb drives... You use one thumb drive to install a linux distro like "Tails" or "BitKey", disable all networking within the distro and create a wallet there using persistent storage. You then create the watching wallet on your "normal" OS. When you want to send coins, create unsigned transaction using watching wallet. Put unsigned transaction on 2nd thumb drive. Boot off thumb drive with the Linux distro ànd wallet with private keys. Sign transaction on 2nd thumb drive. Reboot to normal OS and broadcast signed transaction. It isn't quite as secure as a properly airgapped machine, but is pretty close... and it will remove a lot of the possible attack vectors compared with having just a hot wallet on an online PC. If you have enough Bitcoins that this is a real security concern, spend the 0.05 btc and buy a hardware wallet! If any third party controls a multisig for an address when the address should be solely yours, you are at risk. An example would be Bitfinex.
That isn't really a fair comparison... The flaw in the Bitfinex system was that there was no 2FA involved, it was purely multisig where 1 signer just auto signed any transaction sent to it... Effectively rendering it useless as theft prevention if the thief had just 1 MultiSig key. With TrustedCoin, because it is a 2FA system, even if the attacker compromised your multiSig key, they'd still need to have compromised your 2FA code as well, as TrustedCoin won't sign without your 2FA code. |
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing what happened was something like this:
They said send 0.01 btc and you went to your wallet and entered 0.01 btc and then your wallet subtracted the miner's fee and they only got 0.00999 btc... Am I right?
Gyft use BitPay as their payment processor... you need to make sure that the amount they receive is the amount invoiced. A lot of (crap) wallets will actually subtract the miner's fee from the sent amount, rather than adding the fee to the sent amount. The result being that the recipient doesn't get the full amount.
If this is what your wallet is doing... Get a better wallet. What wallet did you send from?
As for the refund, obviously they'll need to pay a miner's fee to get your Bitcoins back to you... Apparently, they're using high fees to ensure fast confirmation times. No doubt if they used lower fees, everyone would moan that the refunds got "stuck"
|
|
|
|
From when the HD wallets were first introduced back in v0.13: Newly created wallets will use hierarchical deterministic key generation according to BIP32 (keypath m/0’/0’/k’). Existing wallets will still use traditional key generation.
Backups of HD wallets, regardless of when they have been created, can therefore be used to re-generate all possible private keys, even the ones which haven’t already been generated during the time of the backup. Attention: Encrypting the wallet will create a new seed which requires a new backup!
Wallet dumps (created using the dumpwallet RPC) will contain the deterministic seed. This is expected to allow future versions to import the seed and all associated funds, but this is not yet implemented.
HD key generation for new wallets can be disabled by -usehd=0. Keep in mind that this flag only has affect on newly created wallets. You can’t disable HD key generation once you have created a HD wallet.
There is no distinction between internal (change) and external keys.
HD wallets are incompatible with older versions of Bitcoin Core. So, no... You can't upgrade your wallet to be HD. You will have to create a new wallet and transfer your coins to an address generated by the new wallet. Also, you don't get given a mnemonic or anything with Core... Basically you just need a single backup of the wallet.dat file and it can regenerate all addresses... So no more worrying about the 100 address pool limit issue and needing to do regular backups etc. As noted, you can also see the actual seed by using "dumpwallet" |
|
|
|
Firstly, Electrum doesn't take any fees... You pay "miner's" fee... And if using 2FA, a service fee to the 2FA provider. What you are seeing is the "service fee" charged by TrustedCoin for providing the 2FA service. They are a 3rd party service and not related to Electrum. You cannot alter or set this fee. They charge 0.0005 for non prepaid, or you prepay 10 or 100 to get a discounted rate. Click the little blue shield icon in the corner of the window to see the TrustedCoin fees.  Guide here: https://api.trustedcoin.com/#/electrum-help |
|
|
|
|
They may not be easier to memorise, but they do offer some protection from mistakes when transcribing... Given a normal English word like "finally" and a random string like "De0itl5" which one do you think you might get wrong when writing it down?
Additionally, by attempting to use non-similar words, it also tries to enable recovery from minor errors in transcribing. Granted the current word list isn't exactly great for this with word like kit, kid, kite etc...
But still... If you write down "finaly" instead of "finally" you're likely to be able to fix that by looking at the word list... However, if your random string is "De0itl5" and it isn't working when you try and type it in... What are you options for figuring out which character is wrong... Or missing?
|
|
|
|
ahhh I just re-read your original message... I thought your were sending 0.001... ie 100,000 sats. you're wanting to send 10,000 sats... The dust calculation is: 182*dustRelayFee/1000 (in satoshis)... which supposedly is around 546 sats given the default dust relay fee of 3000 sat/kB... double check the units you're using... Electrum defaults to mBTC from memory... so if you put 0.0001 and it is working in mBTC, it'll think your trying to send 10 satoshis!  Also, if you preview the transaction... is it creating a "change" output that is smaller than the 0.0001? That might be triggering the "dust" limit detection |
|
|
|
|
what error are you getting in Electrum? It definitely supports "pay to many"... and as far as I know doesn't stop you from sending any amount...
NOTE: With 50 outputs, your transaction is going to be at least 1700 bytes (50*34 bytes)... so the Dynamic fee is likely to be calculated quite high. You may want to turn dynamic fees off and calculate it manually. If you set the transaction up and press "preview" you'll get an idea of the size of the transaction and will be able to work out a decent fee to set.
As for Core, due to recent optimisations, if you're using the latest version, a bootstrap file is now slower than just syncing from scratch... You may want to
|
|
|
|
Okay So I think I did it properly !! *crosses fingers* With a 1 btc test.
Not sure I would have used 1 BTC for a test! Hahaha But glad to hear it all seems to have worked as it should... I did a 1 btc transaction with my core that is only up to date to 2015 or something. I did the transaction to my trezor from my core wallet on my offline computer. got the raw data hex to and used another usb to plugged into my online computer and used coinb.in/#broadcast. I did not use my USB with the wallet file for this of course.
Clever thinking not using the USB with the wallet file... I'd completely overlooked that! my trezor now says 1 btc balance. (See last question please)
my core wallet fee said .00004520
Here is the summary from my trezor
size: 225(bytes)
Fee rate : .000208888~ per kb
Fee: .00004520
Lock time:
41 confirmations
so now that 1 btc is safely into my trezor ? If this fee rate correct ? Seems low for nowadays.
That fee looks lowish... 4520 sats / 225 bytes = 20.8 sats/byte... But the network load has been relatively low of late... The vast majority of unconfirmed transactions are down below the 20-40 sats/byte mark: https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-txDid you adjust the fee "slider" in Core when you created the transaction? A few more questions.
I installed my trezor and then i downloaded electrum and selected hardware wallet to connect the two ? is this correct to do ? or should i make another electrum wallet thats not hardware.
The hardware one is effectively the "watching wallet" for the Trezor... So it's good to keep so you can see your up to date balance and create transactions etc. It's perfectly safe to have on an online computer as it doesn't hold private keys. How to set fees with coin.in/#broadcast ? or are they just auto set from the site
How to set fees with electrum ? or will it be same as trezor which i have set to high fees ? is that correct ?
The fees are set when you create the transaction... So for your initial transactions to get the coins into Trezor, they are set in Core. After you have all your coins in Trezor the fees will be set in whatever wallet you are using with Trezor (ie. Electrum). Electrum has several options for fees, dynamic or manual. It gives you a lot of control, if you want it. I use mycellium on my phone is that a safe one to send small amounts to from my trezor ? and how to configure fees for mycellium ?
Mycelium is considered one of the better Android wallets... Although the fee system is what I'd call "dynamic preset". You basically get 4 settings "low-prio", "economic", "normal" and "priority"... This is somewhat akin to the slider in Core and Mycelium's guess at "25 blocks", "10 blocks", "5 blocks" and "1 block" confirmation time. The actual amounts are dynamic and change according to current network conditions. From personal experience, the fees tend to be a little higher than other wallets, but that should mean that your transaction won't get "stuck". There is also a version of Electrum for Android, which you might want to check out as well. Any other tips for using trezor, electrum,mycell, core and coinb.in so I do not get roasted with fees because I will soon send all of my coins there I dont not want to do that just yet. Want to make sure my test of 1 btc looks good to you. Or safety tips.
To minimise fees, I would suggest that you send all in one transaction, set the fee slider as you want in Bitcoin Core... Double check the fee before you send. There are methods to "accelerate" your transaction if it gets stuck, so you should be able to use a minimal fee (I'd recommend the 20+ as an absolute minimum). once i send all my coins do i need to sync bitcoin core wallet fully for the transaction to be complete ? example i now have 1 btc in my trezor however is it actually there even tho my core is not fully synced ? Or do i have to sync and then even more fees will be paid once its fully sync.
No, once the transaction is created and signed, you don't need Core for anything else... You could theoretically remove it (keep the wallet file of course "just in case" ) Personally, I'd wait until everything was fully moved and shifted to the Trezor and confirmed before removing it (mainly because having to resync would be a total P.I.T.A!!?!  ) Or did i do properly and my 1 BTC is safe and sound sleeping in my trezor no more fees and I can go ahead and do all the rest now  If the transaction has been confirmed, and your Trezor address shows 1 BTC on a block explorer... Then it sounds like that 1 BTC is safely in your Trezor wallet |
|
|
|
Have you tried using it on MultiBit Classic? https://multibit.org/release-info/classic/v0.5.19.htmlFairly sure the HD wallets are named something like "mbhd.wallet.aes". If it is just "multibit.wallet", it is most likely a MultiBit Classic wallet NOTE: attempting to send coins out of MBC may result in transactions with very low fees by "modern" standards... You may be better off exporting you private keys and then importing or sweeping them into a more up to date (and maintained) wallet like Electrum. Alao, I don't recommend MB HD, it has some serious bugs at the moment...  |
|
|
|
Wasn't Bitfinex hacked a year ago a similiar way? They had a multisig wallet and they got hacked?
Because they'd set up a stupid system whereby BitGo (the external party) would just Auto authorise whatever transactions were sent to it for signing... Hacker "hacked Bitfinex"/got their key (inside job?)... Created transactions sending 120,000 BTC to themselves... BitGo blindly co-signed the transactions... Hacker got rich... Bitfinex users all took a 36% hit to share the pain... |
|
|
|
|
It wasn't necessarily sent to a site... It could have been just some hacker sending coins to their own wallet... In any case, about all you can do is try Google searching the address and see if it pops up in a result... Looking an address with a person/site is not usually a trivial task.
Have you scanned your PC for Trojans/viruses/malware? Some decent scanners are: MalwareBytes, Spybot Search and Destroy
Don't forget that the time you see on a block explorer will be the time The transaction was confirmed, not necessarily when it was initially sent, so it may be a transaction that took some time to confirm.
|
|
|
|
Did you try recovery software like Recuva and/or EaseUs? They may be able to recover your wallet.dat file. If you had a password on your wallet file, you won't be able to find the private key doing a sector by sector search as they are stored encrypted. If you can't recover the wallet.dat, then I'm afraid your coins are gone. |
|
|
|
It looks like you might not constructing the $json_where variable correctly... Specifically... What is this attempting to do? Are you trying to set the fee? If so, don't... The fee is automatically calculated as the difference between inputs and specified outputs... You don't explicitly list it in the transaction. |
|
|
|
A friend of mine at work only have Electrum as their wallet in their PC. He asked me what to do and I told him I will install Bitcoin core so he can export the private keys to whichever chain will be available after a possible split.
Why go to all that trouble? Electrum is a perfectly adequate place to have your coins in the event of a split. In fact, I'd say you can probably export your keys from Electrum easier than you can from Bitcoin Core.... Plus you don't need to download 120+gigs worth of blockchain data... The Electrum Dev, ThomasV, even wrote a guide to using Electrum with 2 chains (ie. How to split your coins): http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/hardfork.html |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
