Please help me, what happened with my transaction?

[mairac]

Hi everyone.
I sent BTC from the exchange to my wallet and I didn´t receive them.
Can anyone help me to find out what happened please?

The exchange name is Digitra. My wallet is a Trustwallet. I asked already for help in each one. They didn´t care or solved anything.

Above are the infos:

Transaction hash:  d7e78df4ba2ebf7ee4469568cc7fb452bb4abd326b195d5951c3b215d5bcf645
Amount sent: 0.03142558 BTC • $846.39
Fee 15,860 SATS • $4.27
From bc1q9-sx0nx
To 2 Outputs: bc1quure5m00xvfh676h0sx8rr5k5nfxymal3v5mtj
bc1q9r377axh06fws750fdq9280qfx9ecefkksx0nx

[1715615500]

1715615500

[1715615500]

1715615500

[1715615500]

1715615500

[1715615500]

1715615500

[1715615500]

1715615500

[1715615500]

1715615500

[hosseinimr93]

Transaction hash:  d7e78df4ba2ebf7ee4469568cc7fb452bb4abd326b195d5951c3b215d5bcf645
Amount sent: 0.03142558 BTC • $846.39

The transaction has been confirmed and provided that you have withdrawn the fund to the correct address, you should see that on your wallet.
Note that you didn't receive 0.03142558 BTC in that transaction. That's the value of the UTXO used by the exchange to make your transaction. You received 0.00684531 BTC. The rest was sent back to the sender as change.

Edit:
You have received two other transactions as well and your balance should be now 0.10731957 BTC. Does your wallet show a different value?

[Charles-Tim]

Import your seed phrase on Electrum. Many people have this same complaint some weeks ago even till now. You can check your Trustwallet balance if the coin reflect there, but not showing in the transaction history, and no in-app notification.

[BitMaxz]

Trustwallet has some bugs like this issue even the transaction is confirmed. It's a well-known issue.

Would you mind to try to connect to another internet or use VPN and maybe there is something in your current internet blocking trustwallet to connect online.

If it didn't work like the above said you can import your wallet to Electrum.

[Charles-Tim]

Trustwallet has some bugs like this issue even the transaction is confirmed. It's a well-known issue.

Would you mind to try to connect to another internet or use VPN and maybe there is something in your current internet blocking trustwallet to connect online.

If it didn't work like the above said you can import your wallet to Electrum.

It is a bug, but not a bug that makes Trustwallet not to connect online, but it would be good to also check internet connection also. If it is the issue of a transaction not showing on the history page but the coin showing on the balance, the transaction can no more appear on history page but he can be able to transfer the coin.

I just do not like to advice people to do it that way because Trustwallet is a close source wallet.

If that is not the issue, Trustwallet seed phrase import on Electrum will be the solution too. But I will advice him to create another Electrum wallet in which he will generate the seed phrase from Electrum wallet and send the coins to the new Electrum wallet which he generate its seed phrase directly from Electrum.

[Zoomic]

Hi everyone.
I sent BTC from the exchange to my wallet and I didn´t receive them.
Can anyone help me to find out what happened please?

The transaction has dropped in your wallet.

To 2 Outputs: bc1quure5m00xvfh676h0sx8rr5k5nfxymal3v5mtj
bc1q9r377axh06fws750fdq9280qfx9ecefkksx0nx

The second address is not yours, why did you include it or expecting the bitcoin in it.
That address belongs to the exchange and they use it as a change address as hosseinimr93 said

This address has transacted 206 times on the Bitcoin blockchain. It has received a total of 63.95621762 BTC $1,648,978 and has sent a total of 63.49406343 BTC $1,637,062 The current value of this address is 0.46215419 BTC $11,915.69.

You can see the volume of transaction it has performed.

I also checked your own address and it got 3 recieved transactions and you haven't spent from it, so there is no fear of an attack on your wallet.

[Charles-Tim]

The transaction has dropped in your wallet.

You mean the transaction has been confirmed and can be seen in his wallet. Using 'dropped in his wallet' makes the sentence to be entirely different from what you meant. Just saying, to make it not confusing.

[mairac]

Transaction hash:  d7e78df4ba2ebf7ee4469568cc7fb452bb4abd326b195d5951c3b215d5bcf645
Amount sent: 0.03142558 BTC • $846.39

The transaction has been confirmed and provided that you have withdrawn the fund to the correct address, you should see that on your wallet.
Note that you didn't receive 0.03142558 BTC in that transaction. That's the value of the UTXO used by the exchange to make your transaction. You received 0.00684531 BTC. The rest was sent back to the sender as change.

Edit:
You have received two other transactions as well and your balance should be now 0.10731957 BTC. Does your wallet show a different value?

Thanks for the comment. I saw the 2 other transactions and confirmed that trustwallet shows the correct ammount

[mairac]

Import your seed phrase on Electrum. Many people have this same complaint some weeks ago even till now. You can check your Trustwallet balance if the coin reflect there, but not showing in the transaction history, and no in-app notification.

Yes, exactly! The balance is reflecting the amount transfered but the history doesn´t show the transaction. There wasn´t any in-app notification either. Thanks!!! Electrum doesn´t have this kind of failure? Is so much better than trust wallet that worths oppening a new wallet there?

[Charles-Tim]

Electrum doesn´t have this kind of failure? Is so much better than trust wallet that worths oppening a new wallet there?

I have not seen such an error before on Electrum and it is the wallet that I use the most (for bitcoin). Generate a seed phrase on Electrum and you can transfer your bitcoin from Trustwallet to Electrum.

[logfiles]

Electrum doesn´t have this kind of failure? Is so much better than trust wallet that worths oppening a new wallet there?

Not any that I have seen in the recent times. Even if there was a bug, one can easily create an issue documenting the bug on github, the devs can look into it and fix the bug in the next update - https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues

Electrum is open source and the binary is reproducible.
Here is another reason to completely avoid closed source wallets like Trustwallet

[dansus021]

Same case from that I post earlier - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5454322.msg62377917#msg62377917 the best is move to another wallet i dont know why trust wallet doesnt solve this bug. and by the way i just heard the exchange named digtra is this new exchange or local exchange in your country?

and here is the guide how to export private key - https://community.trustwallet.com/t/where-is-my-wallet-private-key/71185

[Charles-Tim]

Same case from that I post earlier - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5454322.msg62377917#msg62377917 the best is move to another wallet i dont know why trust wallet doesnt solve this bug. and by the way i just heard the exchange named digtra is this new exchange or local exchange in your country?

and here is the guide how to export private key - https://community.trustwallet.com/t/where-is-my-wallet-private-key/71185

You can send your coin from Trustwallet to Electrum which is better. No need to export seed phrase or private key because Trustwallet is a close source wallet.

There is no exchange called Diagra. Avoid scam.

[Pmalek]

the best is move to another wallet i dont know why trust wallet doesnt solve this bug.
...
and here is the guide how to export private key

If you are talking about moving your bitcoins to a better wallet, you need to cut all ties with the Trust Wallet. That means sweeping your balance to a new wallet whose seed was generated on that new client. Exporting and importing the Trust Wallet private keys isn't recommended in that case. As Charles-Tim suggested, OP should create a new wallet with a new set of keys.
 

and by the way i just heard the exchange named digtra is this new exchange or local exchange in your country?

After a quick google search, it seems like it's a Brazilian exchange.

There is no exchange called Diagra. Avoid scam.

He said 'Digtra', but the actual name is Digitra, not Diagra.

[dansus021]

You can send your coin from Trustwallet to Electrum which is better. No need to export seed phrase or private key because Trustwallet is a close source wallet.

If you are talking about moving your bitcoins to a better wallet, you need to cut all ties with the Trust Wallet. That means sweeping your balance to a new wallet whose seed was generated on that new client. Exporting and importing the Trust Wallet private keys isn't recommended in that case. As Charles-Tim suggested, OP should create a new wallet with a new set of keys.

yeah guys thanks for the concern  Like I was mentioned before in my previous post that Im using trustwallet because it's convenient and their mobile app is super friendly and I'm using it for playing with DeFi World. Tho its temporary and for hot wallet so i have small amount of money there and have been using it for daily transactions only, not Hold for a long time.

He said 'Digtra', but the actual name is Digitra, not Diagra.

Typo 

[Pmalek]

yeah guys thanks for the concern  Like I was mentioned before in my previous post that Im using trustwallet because it's convenient and their mobile app is super friendly and I'm using it for playing with DeFi World. Tho its temporary and for hot wallet so i have small amount of money there and have been using it for daily transactions only, not Hold for a long time.

As you can see from this thread and some others that have popped up on the forum, Trust Wallet is not that convenient now when people have started experiencing connection problems, missing transactions, balance updates, no history of transactions, etc.

For DeFi, ETH tokens, or other altcoins, sure, go ahead and use Trust Wallet. It's not like the competition is any better because almost all multi-coin wallets are closed-source and not the best security-wise. E.g., Atomic Wallet had a huge breach (apparently) not that long ago. But you have better options for bitcoin hot wallets and I fell like you should use them.

[dansus021]

As you can see from this thread and some others that have popped up on the forum, Trust Wallet is not that convenient now when people have started experiencing connection problems, missing transactions, balance updates, no history of transactions, etc.

For DeFi, ETH tokens, or other altcoins, sure, go ahead and use Trust Wallet. It's not like the competition is any better because almost all multi-coin wallets are closed-source and not the best security-wise. E.g., Atomic Wallet had a huge breach (apparently) not that long ago. But you have better options for bitcoin hot wallets and I fell like you should use them.

Yeah currently Im looking alternative for the DeFi, couple month ago I bought Safepal Hardware Wallet the company who backed by binance but it turn out the safepal also closed source  So I think i put the wrong move again

[suzanne5223]

As you can see from this thread and some others that have popped up on the forum, Trust Wallet is not that convenient now when people have started experiencing connection problems, missing transactions, balance updates, no history of transactions, etc.

For DeFi, ETH tokens, or other altcoins, sure, go ahead and use Trust Wallet. It's not like the competition is any better because almost all multi-coin wallets are closed-source and not the best security-wise. E.g., Atomic Wallet had a huge breach (apparently) not that long ago. But you have better options for bitcoin hot wallets and I fell like you should use them.

Yeah currently Im looking alternative for the DeFi, couple month ago I bought Safepal Hardware Wallet the company who backed by binance but it turn out the safepal also closed source  So I think i put the wrong move again

You did make a wrong because apart from SafePal being a close source a vulnerability was once detected in their wallet, the S1 to be precise. Hope the hardware wallet you bought is not the S1 but why is all wallet backed or acquired by Binance are the close source.
About the Atomic wallet, it is a vulnerable wallet right from launch and you'll see that another attack will happen right after the current if the dev team dont stop their shady service because the wallet was not create with good security.

[Pmalek]

Yeah currently Im looking alternative for the DeFi, couple month ago I bought Safepal Hardware Wallet the company who backed by binance but it turn out the safepal also closed source  So I think i put the wrong move again

Considering that you are using Trust Wallet, which is already closed-source and a hot wallet, you might as well up your security a tiny bit by moving your altcoins to your Safepal. It's also closed-source, but at least it's a hardware wallet and beats the Trust Wallet in that regard.

You did make a wrong because apart from SafePal being a close source a vulnerability was once detected in their wallet, the S1 to be precise. Hope the hardware wallet you bought is not the S1...

I think the S1 is the only one Safepal has, so I am pretty sure that's the one dansus021 bought. I remember there was some talk about security vulnerabilities with the S1 a few years ago. I couldn't remember the specifics, but a quick search led me to this thread: Safepal S1 wallet have serious flaws!

Apparently, the device is equipped with an unknown secure element chip and not the one Safepal claims it uses.
The second issue is that Kraken managed to install alternative firmware software on the device easily. They didn't extract any keys though.
The last issue is not directly related to the security of your funds but to license violations. There were signs that Safepal used open-source code that they later closed for the public and claimed it was their own creation. 

[Cricktor]

Apparently, the device is equipped with an unknown secure element chip and not the one Safepal claims it uses.
The second issue is that Kraken managed to install alternative firmware software on the device easily. They didn't extract any keys though.
The last issue is not directly related to the security of your funds but to license violations. There were signs that Safepal used open-source code that they later closed for the public and claimed it was their own creation. 

That's some red flags already. I wonder why people don't do some research before they buy a hardware wallet. With such a flaw history I wouldn't have considered to buy a Safepal at all even if it were almost for free. Buyers shouldn't encourage companies to create and sell such crap. You can vote with your wallet, don't throw money at such companies!

[suzanne5223]

You did make a wrong because apart from SafePal being a close source a vulnerability was once detected in their wallet, the S1 to be precise. Hope the hardware wallet you bought is not the S1...

I think the S1 is the only one Safepal has, so I am pretty sure that's the one dansus021 bought. I remember there was some talk about security vulnerabilities with the S1 a few years ago. I couldn't remember the specifics, but a quick search led me to this thread: Safepal S1 wallet have serious flaws!

Apparently, the device is equipped with an unknown secure element chip and not the one Safepal claims it uses.
The second issue is that Kraken managed to install alternative firmware software on the device easily. They didn't extract any keys though.
The last issue is not directly related to the security of your funds but to license violations. There were signs that Safepal used open-source code that they later closed for the public and claimed it was their own creation. 

I'm unaware of some information you provided but that was exactly the vulnerability I am talking about and it's crazy how some cryptocurrency wallet providers lie with their services cause it somehow makes the market unhealthy.
Another is the ledger hardware wallet that just wants to destroy its reputation through its Recover service which I don't look deep into it but if the idea is good the crypto Twitter won't have backlash the ledger idea.

[Pmalek]

... it's crazy how some cryptocurrency wallet providers lie with their services cause it somehow makes the market unhealthy.

Many businesses will lie to protect their interests, and that's not something that occurs solely in the hardware wallet space. Don't ever think they will put your interests in front of their own.

Ledger has conveniently not told the truth about their secure element chips because everyone thought that no data on it can be accessed online. Turns out, a piece of software code is the only thing that prevents remote access, with or without user acceptance. A different type of code could, therefore, enable online sharing of sensitive data.
Trezor is conveniently not telling the truth about the physical vulnerabilities their devices suffer from. They don't mention that to new users who purchase their HWs. Their documents explain how to set up and configure a passphrase, but not that Trezor suffers from seed extraction vulnerabilities you can't protect yourself from but can only mitigate with passphrases and or additional codes stored on SD cards.   

Another is the ledger hardware wallet that just wants to destroy its reputation through its Recover service which I don't look deep into it but if the idea is good the crypto Twitter won't have backlash the ledger idea.

That's another example of a convenient lie. Ledger only talks about how the Recover feature is a great backup choice if you lose your seed. They don't explain what potential problems it introduces: sharing custody of your private keys, sending your seed over the internet, and putting yourself in a position to have your crypto confiscated by your government with a proper court order. Not to mention hacking incidents where parts or complete seed shards and decryption keys could get stolen.

[suzanne5223]

... it's crazy how some cryptocurrency wallet providers lie with their services cause it somehow makes the market unhealthy.

Many businesses will lie to protect their interests, and that's not something that occurs solely in the hardware wallet space. Don't ever think they will put your interests in front of their own.

Ledger has conveniently not told the truth about their secure element chips because everyone thought that no data on it can be accessed online. Turns out, a piece of software code is the only thing that prevents remote access, with or without user acceptance. A different type of code could, therefore, enable online sharing of sensitive data.
Trezor is conveniently not telling the truth about the physical vulnerabilities their devices suffer from. They don't mention that to new users who purchase their HWs. Their documents explain how to set up and configure a passphrase, but not that Trezor suffers from seed extraction vulnerabilities you can't protect yourself from but can only mitigate with passphrases and or additional codes stored on SD cards.   

However, all this is lies is bad for the cryptocurrency market, and whenever I thought about this it making feel uncomfortable that all these hardware wallets cannot provide the community with what they really wanted and build the foundation of their service on a lie. I also ask myself is it that they don't want to spend money on research that could provide solutions to the issue or they just want to enrich themselves.

Another is the ledger hardware wallet that just wants to destroy its reputation through its Recover service which I don't look deep into it but if the idea is good the crypto Twitter won't have backlash the ledger idea.

That's another example of a convenient lie. Ledger only talks about how the Recover feature is a great backup choice if you lose your seed. They don't explain what potential problems it introduces: sharing custody of your private keys, sending your seed over the internet, and putting yourself in a position to have your crypto confiscated by your government with a proper court order. Not to mention hacking incidents where parts or complete seed shards and decryption keys could get stolen.

The sending of seeds over the internet is a big NO for me not to mention giving the government the power for crypto confiscation.