[ANN] bitaddress.org Safe JavaScript Bitcoin address/private key

[minimalB]

I currently setup my paper wallets and want to use split wallets.

Is there a way to proof the Shares and check if the right private key works or not
without run it live with BTC?

Thank you.

Sure you can! Enter separate shares into "Available Shares (whitespace separated)" and click "Combine Shares" button to get the private key (it is displayed at the bottom of the screen).

Then you can use "Wallet Details" tab where you can enter the private key (you just got from "Split wallet tab") and check if public address (from "Split Wallet" tab and "Wallet details" tab) match. If it does, it works!

What is the best wallet to pay from a paper wallet? iOS or Mac

Mycelium (Android) and Breadwallet (iOS) work great. CoPay
is also fine and it works on Android, iOS and Win phones.

[BitCharlie]

I currently setup my paper wallets and want to use split wallets.

Is there a way to proof the Shares and check if the right private key works or not
without run it live with BTC?

Thank you.

Sure you can! Enter separate shares into "Available Shares (whitespace separated)" and click "Combine Shares" button to get the private key (it is displayed at the bottom of the screen).

Then you can use "Wallet Details" tab where you can enter the private key (you just got from "Split wallet tab") and check if public address (from "Split Wallet" tab and "Wallet details" tab) match. If it does, it works!

What is the best wallet to pay from a paper wallet? iOS or Mac

Mycelium (Android) and Breadwallet (iOS) work great. CoPay
is also fine and it works on Android, iOS and Win phones.

Perfect. Thank you so much!

[pointbiz]

v3.2.1
https://www.bitaddress.org/bitaddress.org-v3.2.1-SHA256-ca6a34d4ac6742dc8cebfbe0089e28392b6ee9b33b05eaa68c9e00b00e355f48.html
 - BigInteger modInverse should be positive
 - throw if modInverse 0
 - improve BigInteger constructor so that it works if caller forgets 'new'
 - add unit tests for BigInteger
 - thanks to dooglus, jprichardson, dcousens

[TheButterZone]

gpg: Signature made Sun Aug 21 12:40:40 2016 PDT using RSA key ID 63974F5A
gpg: BAD signature from "pointbiz <pointbiz@bitaddress.org>" [unknown]

[pointbiz]

gpg: Signature made Sun Aug 21 12:40:40 2016 PDT using RSA key ID 63974F5A
gpg: BAD signature from "pointbiz <pointbiz@bitaddress.org>" [unknown]

Strange. Do you have the key I updated in 2015. I added uid for pointbiz@bitaddress.org

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32)
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=9YLe
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

[TheButterZone]

I'd already updated all the keys & also specifically imported your public key before doing the --verify

gpg: key 63974F5A: "pointbiz <pointbiz@bitaddress.org>" not changed
gpg: Total number processed: 1
gpg:              unchanged: 1

[pointbiz]

I'd already updated all the keys & also specifically imported your public key before doing the --verify

gpg: key 63974F5A: "pointbiz <pointbiz@bitaddress.org>" not changed
gpg: Total number processed: 1
gpg:              unchanged: 1

OK. Which file returned bad "CHANGELOG.txt.asc" or "bitaddress.org-v3.2.1-SHA256-ca6a34d4ac6742dc8cebfbe0089e28392b6ee9b33b05eaa68c9e00b00e355f48.html.sig"?

[pointbiz]

gpg: Signature made Sun Aug 21 12:40:40 2016 PDT using RSA key ID 63974F5A
gpg: BAD signature from "pointbiz <pointbiz@bitaddress.org>" [unknown]

I think the issue is DOS line endings. I'm going to re-release.

[pointbiz]

v3.2.1
with unix line endings
https://www.bitaddress.org/bitaddress.org-v3.2.1-SHA256-42c3bcb643c451689e5bd1499ed4b516be2da06d2fe3886b0dd15b8fc2525ecd.html

[pointbiz]

https://www.bitaddress.org/bitaddress.org-v3.2.2-SHA256-f4d047c264a2b71946de319482a9365e56d8d7289dd85a352da3b1448b7647df.html
v3.2.2
 - version bump for unix line endings

The grunt build process already forces UNIX line endings. In this case I built in a branch and pushed to git. Then auto-merged the pull request and pulled to local master. After the pull to local master bitaddress.org.html had DOS line endings.

I updated the process I use to sign to re-build before sign to enforce the UNIX line endings so even in a scenario like above I will avoid this in the future.

[thebetsport]

how to use bitaddress .org in savety
because is my private key in save in hosting in bitaddress org , so own bitaddress org can know my private key
and then my balance bitcoin can lost

[TheButterZone]

https://www.bitaddress.org/bitaddress.org-v3.2.2-SHA256-f4d047c264a2b71946de319482a9365e56d8d7289dd85a352da3b1448b7647df.html
v3.2.2
 - version bump for unix line endings

The grunt build process already forces UNIX line endings. In this case I built in a branch and pushed to git. Then auto-merged the pull request and pulled to local master. After the pull to local master bitaddress.org.html had DOS line endings.

I updated the process I use to sign to re-build before sign to enforce the UNIX line endings so even in a scenario like above I will avoid this in the future.

That verified.

The ZIP linked to on the homepage (second line below) goes 404: Not Found.

Code:

<a href="https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org" target="_blank" id="footerlabelgithub">GitHub Repository</a> 
						(<a href="https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org/archive/v3.2.2.zip" target="_blank" id="footerlabelgithubzip">zip</a>)

[pointbiz]

https://www.bitaddress.org/bitaddress.org-v3.2.2-SHA256-f4d047c264a2b71946de319482a9365e56d8d7289dd85a352da3b1448b7647df.html
v3.2.2
 - version bump for unix line endings

The grunt build process already forces UNIX line endings. In this case I built in a branch and pushed to git. Then auto-merged the pull request and pulled to local master. After the pull to local master bitaddress.org.html had DOS line endings.

I updated the process I use to sign to re-build before sign to enforce the UNIX line endings so even in a scenario like above I will avoid this in the future.

That verified.

The ZIP linked to on the homepage (second line below) goes 404: Not Found.

Code:

<a href="https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org" target="_blank" id="footerlabelgithub">GitHub Repository</a> 
						(<a href="https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org/archive/v3.2.2.zip" target="_blank" id="footerlabelgithubzip">zip</a>)

Thanks. Release created at Github. The zip link now works.

[dooglus]

how to use bitaddress .org in savety
because is my private key in save in hosting in bitaddress org , so own bitaddress org can know my private key
and then my balance bitcoin can lost

You can save the bitaddress page source to a thumb drive and open it on an offline machine.

[adaseb]

I got a quick question. Doing cold storage for the first time and wondering if I generate a private key will I have issues such as this individual

https://github.com/keepkey/multibit/issues/661

He apparently created some wallet and sent BTC to it but was never able to actually spend it due to some bug.

[ffe]

I got a quick question. Doing cold storage for the first time and wondering if I generate a private key will I have issues such as this individual

https://github.com/keepkey/multibit/issues/661

He apparently created some wallet and sent BTC to it but was never able to actually spend it due to some bug.

Whatever method you use, you need to practice with tiny amounts of bitcoin until you are satisfied you have a good system. Only then create a new wallet and move your other coins into it.

[dooglus]

Whatever method you use, you need to practice with tiny amounts of bitcoin until you are satisfied you have a good system. Only then create a new wallet and move your other coins into it.

That's all well and good, but it's possible that only 1 in a million addresses generated by a tool will have problems, and so you could test 10 different addresses with tiny amounts and then be unlucky and get a broken address that you use with the rest of your coins.

The bug I linked to used to affect bitaddress. It doesn't any more, but we can't be sure that there aren't other such bugs, so be careful!

[Millionero]

Whatever method you use, you need to practice with tiny amounts of bitcoin until you are satisfied you have a good system. Only then create a new wallet and move your other coins into it.

That's all well and good, but it's possible that only 1 in a million addresses generated by a tool will have problems, and so you could test 10 different addresses with tiny amounts and then be unlucky and get a broken address that you use with the rest of your coins.

The bug I linked to used to affect bitaddress. It doesn't any more, but we can't be sure that there aren't other such bugs, so be careful!

Dooglus, I went back several pages looking for any post where you linked to a bug, but couldn't find it.
Could you post the link again?

[adaseb]

If I were to SIGN and VERIFY a private key offline in Bitcoin-qt would it be adequate enough that I would be able to access the funds?

[Dabs]

If I were to SIGN and VERIFY a private key offline in Bitcoin-qt would it be adequate enough that I would be able to access the funds?

Yes.