use the Electrum console command:


Passing a parameter of "True" to the create_new_address() function will generate a change addresss past the so-called "gap limit"

Note: if you want to generate "receive" addresses... then use "False" as the parameter:

"True" and "False" are case sensitive... you need the uppercase T or F

You can even use a little "for" loop to generate a whole bunch in one go: http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/faq.html#how-can-i-pre-generate-new-addresses

On the dialog that allows you to set a wallet password, there is a little checkbox that says "Encrypt wallet file":


If you enter a password and the box is NOT ticked... then your wallet file is basically "human readable" plaintext in JSON format, but your seed and/or all private keys are still stored "encrypted" within the wallet file... like this (obviously, I blurred the encrypted seed and xprv... but you can see the xprv starts with a "Q6" instead of "xprv" ):


If you enter a password and the box IS ticket... then your seed and/or all your private keys are encrypted within the wallet file... and then the whole wallet file itself is also encrypted, so you can't read any of it... (NOTE: same wallet file as above pic but with encrypt wallet file ticked):

Your transaction is full of dust inputs (all around 15,000 sats or less) and your fee is too small to use the ViaBTC accelerator... only 6 sats/byte...

Even a "Child Pays For Parent" is pretty much useless to you... your total transaction size for both transactions would be a MINIMUM of 1849 bytes... so even if you controlled the address 33Cvp5Jh1CMGk7kUuffJr17idsBxfstDme and used ALL of it as transaction fees, your average fee would only work out to around 100 sats/byte... which probably wouldn't even guarantee a confirmation

You will probably just have to wait for the transaction to drop from the network and send again with at least a 10 sat/byte fee and try and use the ViaBTC accelerator to push your transaction through.

In the future, I suggest you stop collecting so many dust inputs... anything less than 0.001 will end up costing almost as much in fees as the input is worth.

Your first transaction: b4d87517560214b46ebaa6e22964a76c53ba4590a549c186dce2785a45925b0c has a fee of 2 sats/byte, so it isn't eligible for acceleration using ViaBTC.

Your second transaction: 7a70705f9583ecfbe9845752e80f89c455b289e80db4ecd3437e43632e15a047 has a fee of 10+ sats/byte but is still not eligible for acceleration use ViaBTC because it has transaction1 as an unconfirmed parent and it also includes a dust output.

If either of these addresses are yous:
1jcwYPUR4kj3fv5fnW8BH4J7ss1JdGL6v
1NfqxrTKHpbXLs1QjbK6tWRdmkRsA8woU7

You could possibly execute a "Child Pays For Parent" transaction using on of the outputs that go to those two addresses... pay a MASSIVE fee and a miner might then include all three transactions in a block to claim the fee.

I would guesstimate that your next transaction would probably be approximately 373 bytes (2 inputs, 1 output). So, in total, your 3 transactions would be approximately 226 + 700 + 373 = 1299 bytes.  You'll want to pay like 250-300+ sats/bytes MINIMUM to try and get included in a block... so you'll want to pay a total fee across all 3 transactions of: 1299 * 250 = 324750 sats.

324750 sats / 373 bytes = 870.643431635 sats/byte.

So, if you can use one of those outputs in a transaction and include at least an 870 sats/byte fee with it... you might get all three transactions confirmed.

NOTE: these calculations are based on your third transaction having 2 inputs, 1 output... any more inputs and outputs and it will be wrong.

Your other options are:

1. Wait for the transactions to get dropped from the network and resend them again with proper fees
2. Pay a miner to include them in a block (ViatBTC charge 0.01 btc, btc.com service is variable)

All his posts had seemed to disappear after I reported this back in April... but now they're visible again... after his neg trust got removed??:

user profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=988154

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1879375.msg18677070#msg18677070
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1879001.msg18674122#msg18674122
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1879001.msg18674122#msg18674122

https://who.is/whois/starcasinobitcoin.com

email contact is dhlbusiness@outlook.com

Site is a blatant ripoff of another casino site... with some slightly altered graphics (mostly screencaps) and broken links...

a plea for help from the guy who was shilling an obvious scam site before he got tagged neg trust?? I think that is called karma...

Not quite sure how all his posts disappeared and have now reappeared tho... some weirdness going on there...

were those 20 BTC ones that you scammed with your scam casino blatant ripoff website?

The "Password did not unlock the wallet" error does not usually mean the mbhd.wallet.aes file is corrupted. It usually means that you have received a transaction that the old bitcoinj 0.13 library that MBHD uses cannot hash properly.

The error message is very confusing and not a true indication of what has happened. The wallet will "unlock" just fine...

Glad you managed to recover your coins tho! especially that many!

Just out of personal curiosity, did you try my recovery scripts at all? (https://github.com/HardCorePawn/multibit_recovery). I'd be interested to know if it failed to extract the UTXO keys from your wallet and if so, what error you got (if any)?

Ahhh yes... sorry, I forgot to mentiom to make sure you have dumped the privkeys for your "change addresses".

If you want a shortcut to identify all the addresses in your wallet that contain coins, you can use "listunspent" in the debug console in Bitcoin Core. Make sure you have run dumpprivkey for each address listed as containing a UTXO.

Import those to Electrum and the balance should match up

You can also see all the UTXOs if you turn on "Coin Control"... "Settings -> Options -> Wallet -> Enable Coin Control Features"... then if you goto send and click "inputs" you'll get a list of UTXOs... Change addresses will most likely be listed as "(change)"

If you install the newer version, it should default to using the same wallet file (with all the keys, transactions etc) as the previous version... assuming you had your wallet file(s) stored in the default appdata location.

However, if you had your wallet file stored in a non-standard location, you may need to go "file->open wallet" and navigate to where the wallet file is located.

In either case, the newer version should be able to read the wallet file without you having to do any conversion or export etc.

Note: even the latest version of MultiBit Classic will only allow a max fee of 50,000 satoshis which could lead to your transactions getting "stuck" due to low fees.

Correct fees?

39d06ad9e59534d7b21339028955d23f8a47e01568a5a1d7ba36acd602c64660 = 65.289 sats/byte
25d1fb58bcabc6a8a16d9441c1e6d1e867774a529b5bfbc0fb78c71265714522 = 65 sats/byte
3cfe378c17902e43a30a9806efed445deaf2f40de63a6618caabd05bfd3726b1 = 74.996 sats/byte
1f9e7a972b95c9c2ca933f8f3171653516009992170769e5fd4ff90adad232fd = 201.786 says/byte

The only transaction that even gets close to "correct" fees is the last one...

Your assumption that they can't confirm until the 0 fee transaction one is correct.

Your 0 fee hasn't propogated well, which isn't surprising. Most nodes wont accept a transaction of less than the minimum relay fee...

At this stage, you options are: wait until all your transactions drop... (could be problematic as I believe b.info keeps rebroadcasting)... or possibly do a CPFP and pay enough fees to cover ALL 6 transactions (0 fee, 4 low + new transaction) If 1G1jegT9TmEPmoeNQ3x6RfWYHMUtiF2o7u is your address, this *might* be possible...

EDIT: further investigation shows that none of your transactions seem to have propagated outside of b.info. I can't find them on any other block explorer or on my full node either. You may want to try and contact B.info support and ask them if they can abandon/delete the transactions... I don't think there is much chance of these ever confirming. While you are at it, ask them why they even allowed a zero fee transaction in the first place??!?

TX is shorthand for Transaction.

You mean if you want to upgrade to a new version of Electrum? Of course, all your coins will remain in your wallet. You shouldn't need to worry about anything weird happening unless you are upgrading from a VERY old version. What version do you have now? (Latest is 2.8.3)

If the icon in the bottom right corner is a green dot, it is synced. if it is a couple of blue arrows, it is still syncing...

The syncing process is generally relatively quick, however it will be somewhat dependent on your internet connection. Having said that, i've not had it take more than a fewminutes to fully catch up a whole wallet after a restore.

Mind you, my history is only a year old... so if you have things going back to 2014 it could take a little longer

you need to unlock the wallet first...

Only if you care about some pseudo anonymity and slight increase in security... There is no "rule" or "technical limitation" that prevents address re-use. It is just considered to be "best practise" to avoid address re-use if possible.

The world isn't going to end if you end up getting receiving several payments to the same address...

It appears that MultiBit Classic is no longer being actively developed or supported. Unless you fork the source code on GitHub and modify the code and compile it yourself, the most it will ever allow as a fee is 0.0005 BTC... which is not enough these days with 300 sats/byte fees being commonplace.

I would also not recommend MultiBit HD... it has some issues too... (check all the threads)... and there doesn't seem to be any update coming

Honestly... MultiBit HD is a "Bad Idea"™ right at this point in time...

Dev's have known about a fairly critical bug for a while... no fix as yet: https://github.com/keepkey/multibit-hd/issues/982

Just check all of the "Password did not unlock the wallet" threads here...

Electrum

/thread

Electrum is SPV and has a very fast syncing process...

Has "Dynamic Fees" to suggest the best fees for fast confirmation (tweakable with a simple slider at transaction creation time)... and you can even set fee manually if you want ultimate control.

HD wallet... you just have to "backup" the 12 word seed and you're done

Going to be hard to get any guarantees on this one for any software... Electrum is open source, so even if ThomasV disappears, I'm sure it will live on... it's very popular

Oohhhhhhhh OK... so YAY! #greatSuccess

I believe wallet.dat is used only by Bitcoin QT/Core isn't it?

Having said that, you should be able to dumpprivkey (or dumpwallet?) and then simply import the private keys into a "light" wallet like Electrum. You don't need your wallet to be synced to be able to do this... You might be better off "disabling the network activity" by clicking the network icon in the bottom right corner... that should stop the app from being slow and unresponsive while you try to extract the keys.

I'll say you the trouble of going to our thread and post your answer here... it isn't good news I'm afraid...

Your transaction has an unconfirmed parent: f26fca9a488a1888b567b9c9b2a3113095378709f976e7a6eee2e365d9f2e58a
Which has an unconfirmed parent: 4377687a9ebd3c9dab5037956cb1689a19c16ef0b06bba069584642a9b3e8ea9
Which has an unconfirmed parent: ae1a24a6f432416694777b5b8d74b4d7e8b2cdf1a22b8eae33ac18dfa0b276e3
Which has an unconfirmed parent: 1c0708d14e37e00340465afeede16a069085e6a4b39a65ad1753689df3cf098d
Which has an unconfirmed parent: 70351fd29379bb2cd6879a0efe5ff7e62a9e4dd74202245480c177a53766eca2
Which has an unconfirmed parent: 5ef58ba259c139f8f5b8c1460fc7edf83015e763737d27109586ed5e4ae0150c
Which is also apparently part of a double spend...

And unfortunately for you... the other spend "won" and is confirmed: https://blockchain.info/tx/1f1b589733c03df974afb3eab103008fbb94ab3e83e41d3d738f48c7aec91f5d

The end result being that your transaction will NEVER confirm... I suggest you go talk to "payza" and ask them nicely to "please explain" why they are trying to pay people with unconfirmed transactions?