Hmmm. I haven't done any extensive analysis on this, i merely pulled the addresses through walletexplorer, and it seems that 1NDyJtNTjmwk5xPNhjgAMu4HDHigtobu1s might belong to binance?

https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/Binance.com?from_address=1NDyJtNTjmwk5xPNhjgAMu4HDHigtobu1s

Again - uncertain how accurate this data is, and of course if your bitcoins are still on the exchange at all.

Even if this is where your bitcoin has ended up, - it'll most likely still be next to impossible to get them back without something such as a court order, so don't get your hopes up.

If you're gonna use a third-party library, - I'd opt for something like this https://github.com/skeeto/passphrase2pgp

Although this seems password based, so for deriving "multiple" keys from a seed you'll need to write some additional stuff. basically the workflow would be that you take a seed, derive a key, use the key as a password.

As long as you remember the seed and derivation path, you should be able to regen your PGP keys, no? Admittedly, it's less than ideal.

Not sure what OP's problem is exactly (or rather the solution to his problem!), but yeah. actually, you just need the public key which you can encode in a legacy vs segwit format.

Hmmm, while the homepage does not feel or look similar at all, I do see some familiar fonts, and after logging in, it's somewhat obvious they did clone at least some parts from faucethub....

But, even if they did OP, how do you know mexicantarget did not give them the source code / permission to use it?

Has mexicantarget made a statement about this? If not, it might be better to wait for that, unless you have more substantial evidence of this site scamming people.

I don't use C-Lightning, but did you check out this documentation here? https://lightning.readthedocs.io/lightningd-config.5.html

Pay someone to do it for you IRL. Any advice short of that would be wrong.

I already see lots of components of your story that don't really add up, so my first instinct is that you're actually looking for someone to recover a non-existing wallet.dat you bought somewhere.

If that is not the case, again, find a cyber expert IRL, as we're supposedly dealing with insane amounts of money here.

1btc in 2010 - 0.4$ at worst, 0.06$ at best -- buying just a few dollars would be millions of $ worth of BTC now. It does not make sense to NOT do this in a trustless way.


 

Can't governments open your phone using your fingerprints against your own will?

I believe this has happend already (and is legal?) https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/iphone-fingerprint-search-warrant/480861/ , although it seems another court has recently overturned this, https://www.pcmag.com/news/court-cops-cant-force-you-to-unlock-a-phone-with-biometrics, so i'm not exactly sure what the current legal status is.

Anyhow, legalities aside, I think that forcing a fingerprint from someone is an order of magnitude easier than a password, depending on how far you're willing to go. If you're somewhat high-profile, -- I suspect that LE in most jurisdictions also won't have much issue with forcing a fingerprint for you; thus I'd think twice of just using a fingerprint as your password.


BTW; is this topic seriously about OP asking whether or not he should store funds on a rooted android device?

Stack-wise? Most definitely. Looking @ the package.json [1], it seems that they're using AngularJS for their front-end framework, which is already on LTS until 31/12/2021, after which it is no longer supported.

I'm not sure how hard it is to port the codebase over to Angular 2, as I am unaware of the notable differences; but this just goes to show that their dependencies might actually be @ End of Life before it's release, which would be somewhat ironic.


[1]
https://github.com/epochtalk/epochtalk/blob/master/package.json

---

If someone from Epochtalk has already commented on this; please quote it; (I can vaguely remember that i've perhaps made the same remark before, but don't know exactly what response that reaped.)

(Found it; https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2829289.msg47323660#msg47323660)

I don't think this has been addressed yet.

Assume that the password manager is compromised then, or the machine running the password manager.

Note: never store your mnemonics online. An attacker can bypass(?) 2FA on electrum if he knows your mnemonic phrase, which is most likely what happend here.

Without further details, I can't give you any advice other than to thoroughly check your system(s) for malware, and perhaps do a factory reset.

You have, unfortunately, most definitely irreversibly lost access to your bitcoins.

Avē atque valē

I'm pretty sure the second time you didn't specify the prevTxouts, (which is also required for signrawtransactionwithkey, https://bitcoin-rpc.github.io/en/doc/0.17.0/rpc/rawtransactions/signrawtransactionwithkey/, if you use an offline node that is.)

I'm guessing the first attempt you broadcasted to a node which saw your transaction as non-standard? but perhaps someone else can clarify this a bit further, as I'd imagine you (=> bitcoin core) don't just broadcast to a single node.

With "In this address" - are you referring to the prevtxsOut amount specification?

It really should look like this:

in createrawtransaction it should be amount_prev_input - fee (if we're using a single input) === (address you want to spend to)+ change, so i guess what you're saying makes sense (?).

(Not to mention the error for wrong amounts either in createrawtransaction or the specification in prevtxOuts is bad-txns-in-belowout?)

I can't offer any solution. The only way i'm able to reproduce Witness program hash mismatch is @ walletsigning, as a result of not importing the private key, which doesn't seem to be your issue, as you get this when broadcasting..

Second error; you most likely didn't specify the inputs. The offline node has no idea what the inputs are as he does probably does not have an updated UTXO set. See => https://bitcoin-rpc.github.io/en/doc/0.17.0/rpc/rawtransactions/signrawtransactionwithkey/

First error, I'm not really sure. What address type are you spending from (input?!)?

If P2WSH  || P2SH, you need to include the redeemscript when signing.

Are you sure this is right? you're using a 0.08752663 BTC input to spend ~ 0.11223344 + 0.55667788 ?

Edit: I'm unable to reproduce your error. [error code: -26] means that it is rejected by the network for w/e reason. I think that if you want this to get solved, we're gonna need more details.

There's a very good free api here => https://github.com/Blockstream/esplora
Not sure what their limits are.

For that you can use the command. https://bitcoincore.org/en/doc/0.16.0/rpc/wallet/dumpwallet/

However, you should note that you cannot recover your keys with just the MPK within bitcoin core.

If you wish to recover with just the master private key, a third-party library will be required.

No, changing the password does not affect your wallet seed. Your seed will only change if you traverse from an unencrypted wallet to an encrypted wallet. (eg: No passphrase -> passphrase)

See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5098183.msg49271427#msg49271427

As long as your wallet has been created after 0.13 (If you created it between 0.13-0.16, please check if you've actually created a HD wallet!) and you have not imported any private keys.

Huh, that's kind of interesting.

If i remember correctly, didn't bitmex say they used a 3/4 multisig wallet split between the founders?

With two of the founders being arrested already, EDIT I misread the article, it's just Reed who is arrested as of right now. - Still, this poses a gigantic risk. One more arrest and all of their funds will basically be stuck in limbo, depending on their exact setup.

Although i can't ascertain whether this was only for the insurance funds, or also for normal withdraws/deposits. (I believe it was/is also for customer deposits, which could prove even more disastrous, no?)

If you have any money left on Bitmex, I'd withdraw A$AP.

They're basically running a 3/3 multisig now with indictments out for the other three two founders. I would be extremely cautious, as these will probably convert into arrest warrants if they aren't already.

Perhaps their wallet keys are in the hands of a (for them) trusted third party, in which case Bitmex probably won't suffer that much operational difficulties, but I've yet to hear/get confirmation of this.

Yeah, this wouldn't be at all unique to Paxful.

I don't think this is really tag-worthy behaviour anymore (Polo/Bittrex and a whole bunch of other exchanges were sort-of let off scott-free after doing similar stuff.) - although I really do think it should be.

I haven't followed paxful for a while, but if they did retroactively block old customers' funds without giving them a chance, well really, even if they gave several warnings beforehand... - that's indeed scummy, and entirely in line with their site's policy and userbase.

The amount of trust-circles which pad one's reputation might just make up 90% of their total trades, at least it did when i briefly used them.

The funny thing is: Only legit people are really affected by this; It would be trivial to photoshop a document / selfie to pass KYC, heck, you can buy a set for < 100$.

Especially for a lot of unbanked/underdeveloped countries (the unbanking they claim to support: (E: large portions of African/South American/South-East Asian countries)), it is actually impossible to verify their ID's beyond checking for photoshop. (There'd be simply no way to verify these ID's with something like equifax, although i sincerely question whether paxful even has access to something like that for her U.S customers.)

So it's either just window-dressing, or actual nefarious behaviour. (Although a strong case for the latter could be made regardless.)

Anyway, long story short, these P2P exchanges suck and are full of scammers.

Hmm. Huh..... I could swear i successfully used their 0-conf service for ~<50$ transaction a couple weeks ago... Am I going crazy?

Can't remember what fee-band my transaction was in, but it was definitely much higher than 6 sat/b though.

I might be wrong so i'll try this again in a few and update accordingly.