Are you sure about that? That is the bitcointalk forums donation address:


What exactly are you trying to do?

Based on what you've said, I'm going to guess that the 40% of your balance from mining was received in several transactions of small amounts (less than 0.001). Given that current recommended fees are around 350 sats/byte... and the fee being asked for is 715110 sats... I'd guess that your transaction is somewhere around 2000 bytes (715110 / 350) and probably has like 10-15 inputs... or possibly more if your wallet is attempting to use a lower rate.

Depending on your wallet, you can try and set a manual/custom fee that is at least 10 sats/byte... and then attempt to use the ViaBTC TX Accelerator.

To prevent this occurring in the future, you should really stop receiving small amounts into your wallet. If possible, set the minimum payout of your mining to at least 0.01 if you can... definitely no less than 0.001.

Hey Vlad,

There are a few little tricks that can be used to get your transaction pushed through... there is the "ViaBTC TX Accelerator"... it has become quite popular in recent times, and they only have 100 slots per hour, so you may find that you get "Submissions Beyond Limit" if you try to submit your transaction ID. The trick is to submit in the first few seconds of a new hour...

Otherwise, if you post your transaction ID here, there are some forum users (including myself) who may be able to assist through other means

I wouldn't have thought that running different OSes would cause such issues, but I suppose it is possible.

When you were transferring the transaction, did you just save/load the .txn file? Have you tried using just the raw hex instead? Click "copy" instead of "save" and then paste the text into a plain text file... then transfer that to your Air Gapped machine... load the transaction from "text" and copy/paste the hex from the text file. Do the same after you've signed it... save the raw hex instead of the .txn file.

Also, have you tried using an older version of electrum-ltc instead of the latest beta?

If none of these suggestions work, all I can do is advise you to log an issue on the Electrum-ltc github issues list as pooya87 suggested

"Spendable" bitcoins are contained within "Unspent Transaction Outputs"... also known as UTXO's. Any given UTXO belongs to exactly one bitcoin address. A bitcoin address can contain/control multiple UTXOs.

When you spend a UTXO (ie. you send coins to another address), the entire UTXO must be used. Now, the way most wallets are set up these days is to minimise address re-use and to utilise "change" addresses. So what happens is you end up with a situation like this:

- You receive 1.0 BTC to AddressA. AddressA now contains a UTXO for 1.0 BTC.
- You want to send 0.1 BTC (+0.0001 BTC fee) to your friend.
- A transaction is created that has the UTXO from AddressA for 1.0 BTC as an input (remember you have to use the whole UTXO) and an output of 0.1 BTC for AddressFriend and an output of 0.8999 BTC for your change AddressB. (The left over 0.0001 BTC goes to the miner as the network fee.)

Now, your AddressA has NO coins in it. AddressB has an UTXO for 0.8999 BTC and your friend's AddressFriend has a UTXO for 0.1 BTC.

From here, it should be obvious why you can no longer send coins from AddressA... simply because AddressA has NO coins (ie. no UTXO's) in it. The 0.8999 BTC is still in your wallet, but they are now all controlled by the UTXO in AddressB.

To be able to spend coins from AddressA, you would need to send the coins from AddressB (or from some other address) to AddressA, so that AddressA has at least one UTXO in it.

blockcypher gives:

and blockr.io says:

If the OP_EQUALVERIFY is failing, that would indicate that the transaction has not been signed correctly... so you've either signed it with an incorrect private key, or you have not signed the transaction at all.

Are you sure your offline machine has the private key for: LdbE1VHGGRfcqDz7Yb4Dgpmw2xABFfwu4n ?

You will only be able to send from that address, if that address still has coins in it.

What has likely happened, is that you've sent from that address (we'll call it AddressA) previously and the "change" from the transaction has been sent back to a change address in your Electrum wallet (AddressB).

When you go to send coins, they all now exist in AddressB instead of AddressA... If you check AddressA on blockchain explorer (like blockchain.info) you will probably see that the current balance is 0. If this is the case, you will need to send some coins back to AddressA first.

Once your AddressA has some coins in it, enable the "coins" tab ("Wallet" -> "Coins") if it isn't already... then on the "Coins" tab, find your AddressA... right click and select "Spend". This will set up an outbound transaction that will use just the coin(s) from AddressA that you selected, so it is guaranteed to send from that Address

NOTE: if you already have coins in AddressA (ie. the "Final Balance" shown on blockchain.info is not zero), then you should be able to find it on the "Coins" tab without having to send coins to AddressA first

That would probably be the main reason. Litecoin just isn't as widely used as Bitcoin... plus, the litecoin core wallet only requires around 7gigs of download for the full litecoin blockchain, so it isn't a problem for most people to just use the core wallet (unlike bitcoin core and the 120+ gigs of blockchain )

I have a version of Electrum running on testnet... and all I did was use the --testnet commandline argument...

What I did was make a copy of the shortcut that the installer created for Electrum... and then changed the shortcut "Target" value to:

"C:\Program Files (x86)\Electrum\electrum-2.8.3.exe" --testnet

I believe it was you who had another thread about trying to recover the secondary password wasn't it? Didn't you say that blockchain.info support could help recover your wallet but for a 20% cut of your wallet balance as a fee? Have they still not been able to assist?

Out of interest... when you say you remember the clues for your secondary password... what clues do you have exactly? Was it a password hint that you wrote down somewhere? or is it just a standard password format that you use and you just need to try different combinations of word order and numbers etc?

Also, I have since discovered that I was incorrect, and that you CAN use btcrecover... you just need to download the wallet file from blockchain.info using the btcrecover "download-blockchain-wallet.py" script

As you say you can login, I assume you have access to your wallet ID... so that's a great start

Unfortunately, I know of no way "easier" way than using btcrecover... so your options are to get someone who knows how it works to do it for you... or learn how to install and run it yourself.

That last screenshot shows that you are having network problems and are not connected to any peers. Is your internet connection reliable? Perhaps it is some weird firewall issue preventing multibit from communicating with external networks?

If it stays red and says "connecting", then instead of repairing the wallet... goto: "Tools -> Verify Network".

Did you try the suggestion in your electrum thread... to go and get the FULL installer... don't use the standalone executable.

Can you confirm that you used "sweep" to get your coins from MultiBit to Electrum... and that you didn't use the "import" feature?

If you used "sweep", this will have created a transaction on the blockchain and your coins are now in a new wallet in new address(es) with new private key(s). As ranochigo pointed out, everything you now do in Electrum will be able to be restored from your "12 word seed"... write that seed down and keep it safe!

If you used "import", your coins are still controlled by your old private keys and you will have to continue to back up your wallet file.

Do you see:

"Wallet Loaded successfully"
"Connected to Bitcoin Network successfully"
"Synchronised"
"Your wallet is ready to use"

Is it fully sync'd? Can you see in the bottom right corner if it says "Peers: 10" and has a green light?

Also, go into the your %appdata%/MultiBitHD/logs directory and look in the multibit-hd.log file for any error messages.

Is it possible that Genesis Mining have a "minimum payout" feature activated? So they are crediting the amounts to your "account", but will only payout when your account hits a minimum balance like 0.01 BTC or something? What sort of amounts are we talking about here?

Also, does Genesis Mining show any Transaction IDs? or does it just say payment to address: 1bitcoinAddress?

Just FYI, You cannot use btcrecover to recover the "secondary password" from a blockchain.info web wallet... you do not have access to the underlying wallet files... only access to the web interface right?

As noted in the blockchain.info web wallet, there is NO recovery or reset functionality for the secondary password.

You may be able to run some sort of web based password cracking tool to run through password combinations based on your remembered secondary password "clues"... but I'm not sure btcrecover is the right tool... although it may be able to generate a password list for you to provide to another tool?

Additionally, I would expect that the number of passwords you'll be able to test per second is going to be relatively poor, given that it has to run via the b.info web interface.

Sorry for the delay... I suspect that either the wallet is badly corrupted or it is indeed encrypted and the password you are using is wrong, hence the script being unable to read it properly...

Especially in light of the message you're getting from current Bitcoin Core saying that it is corrupted.

I'm wondering if could be struggling with an old wallet format? What version of bitcoin-qt were you using originally with this wallet?

Yeah... it's a kludge... but it works...

If it is just the betting speed you're trying to slow down, you can always set the bet speed in advanced settings to slow the bot down... that will effectively put a delay in to every call to dobet() function.

That solution doesn't let you specify the exact "location" in your script of the delay... but if you're wanting a 1 minute delay to give you time to react and/or stop the bot, it should probably achieve that goal.

Did you even read the BIP that I linked to? I didn't make up the term... it's right there...



No... I said Mycelium supports the concept of accounts... and would add that any truly "BIP44 compatible" wallet (including BIP44 hardware wallets) should also support accounts. Seriously, read the BIP... Also, given that the conversation is revolving around Mycelium... Mycelium terminology is very relevant.  

Within your Mycelium HD Wallet, you can create several accounts, as per BIP44 specifications (which is bitcoin terminology):


That is not an entirely accurate description of HD wallets, the number of each type of address in an HD wallet or how HD wallets work.

If I receive coins to the "first address", we'll call it address1, Mycelium (and most other HD wallets) will automatically generate a new "receive" address (address2) as part of the minimising address re-use system. If I "receive" coins to address2, it'll then generate address3, receive to address3 and it will generate address4 and so on and so on... if I keep going for 100 addresses, receiving and not spending... can you please tell me which one of those 100 addresses (address1 to address100) in my HD Wallet is a change address?

Receive and change addresses exist in two different "chains". The external chain (for receive addresses) and the internal chain (for change addresses). There will be a mixture of both receive and change addresses based on how you have been using the wallet, but saying that "the first address is just an address and the rest are at one point change addresses" is incorrect.


And again, that isn't necessarily the case in Mycelium... you can't have multiple wallets... you have one "wallet", that can have multiple accounts, all derived from the same seed. Each account can have multiple receive and change addresses. Coins in an account can be spent together regardless of the address type they are contained in. You cannot mix coins from different accounts.


When you originally said this:
Did you actually mean to say "two separate wallets"?


Clearly, they can and do have accounts...

Like I said, if you haven't already, you should go read BIP44

NOTE: Apologies to the OP for the thread drift...

I said "account" because Mycelium supports multiple BIP44 "accounts" within your HD wallet... https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki#account

So, your point #1 is not necessarily true... if you create multiple "accounts" in your Mycelium HD Wallet... you CANNOT use coins contained in an address that is in Account 1 with coins from an address that is in Account 2.

Also... your example here is wrong... as long as all the addresses are in the same "Account"... it makes no difference if they are change addresses or "separate addresses" (not even sure what you mean by that??)... if you have coins in the same account, you can spend them together in one transaction.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that only coins in "change" addresses can be spent together? Perhaps you don't understand what a change address actually is and/or how they work and what their function is?

I assume you mean that when x < 100, and the "random" bet is made and loses... that you want to be able to do something specific?

In that case, add a boolean flag that indicates whether or not the last bet was an "x" bet...



you should be able to put in a simple blocking delay using something like: