█ CRYPTO ⇄ CRYPTO █ Secure & Private No-KYC-AML Crypto Swaps (Monero XMR & ZEC)

[LoyceV]

If you are sending a crypto, always perform a "test transaction" of a very small amount first.

I've never done that, and will never do that. Some services, such as Mullvad, don't accept address reuse so the second transaction will be ignored. But even if you're using your own wallet, it's a waste of transaction fees and creates on-chain dust.
I prefer to just make sure the address is correct

[Trêvoid]

If you are sending a crypto, always perform a "test transaction" of a very small amount first.

I've never done that, and will never do that. Some services, such as Mullvad, don't accept address reuse so the second transaction will be ignored. But even if you're using your own wallet, it's a waste of transaction fees and creates on-chain dust.
I prefer to just make sure the address is correct

For high-value transfers, I view the minor transaction fee as an essential insurance policy; sacrificing a small amount is a reasonable price to pay to avoid the permanent loss of principal. While opinions may vary, I prioritize security over efficiency for large sums

Best regards,
— Trêvoid

[LoyceV]

For high-value transfers, I view the minor transaction fee as an essential insurance policy; sacrificing a small amount is a reasonable price to pay to avoid the permanent loss of principal. While opinions may vary, I prioritize security over efficiency for large sums

How would you do that if you're sending to cold storage? "Checking the wallet" doesn't add anything if there's an on-chain confirmation.

[Trêvoid]

For high-value transfers, I view the minor transaction fee as an essential insurance policy; sacrificing a small amount is a reasonable price to pay to avoid the permanent loss of principal. While opinions may vary, I prioritize security over efficiency for large sums

How would you do that if you're sending to cold storage? "Checking the wallet" doesn't add anything if there's an on-chain confirmation.

Hi, you're right that on-chain confirmation is the final word on where the coins have landed. However, 'checking the wallet' isn't about verifying the network it’s about verifying your access

In high-value transfers, the primary risk isn't that the transaction fails to confirm; it’s that it confirms to a destination you cannot actually control. 'Checking the wallet' after a test transaction is the only way to prove three critical things that the blockchain cannot: Ownership verification, backup integrity, human error/malware

on-chain confirmation proves the coins arrived at the address. 'Checking the wallet' proves that you are the one who actually holds the keys to that address. Without the latter, you’re just trusting that your initial setup was perfect which is a major risk when dealing with large sums.

[LoyceV]

'checking the wallet' isn't about verifying the network it’s about verifying your access

In that case, I prefer to confirm I can reproduce the address from my backup (on a safe air-gapped system running from RAM). Especially for high value transactions, I don't want to use a hot wallet.

[bitmover]

'checking the wallet' isn't about verifying the network it’s about verifying your access

In that case, I prefer to confirm I can reproduce the address from my backup (on a safe air-gapped system running from RAM). Especially for high value transactions, I don't want to use a hot wallet.

When I am paranoid about an address that I want to 'check' in my wallet, I sign a message.

Signed message is a great tool to confirm ownership. If you can sign and verify, you can spend.

[mikel_012]

In that case, I prefer to confirm I can reproduce the address from my backup (on a safe air-gapped system running from RAM). Especially for high value transactions, I don't want to use a hot wallet.

When I am paranoid about an address that I want to 'check' in my wallet, I sign a message.

Signed message is a great tool to confirm ownership. If you can sign and verify, you can spend.

This will only tell you have the private key that moment, but it will not tell you the backup you have will generate the same private key next time when you restore your wallet

Can this happen in a rare case?

[LoyceV]

When I am paranoid about an address that I want to 'check' in my wallet, I sign a message.

This will only tell you have the private key that moment, but it will not tell you the backup you have will generate the same private key next time when you restore your wallet

If you're concerned about your backup: test it! It's good practice to do before trusting your backup: get a Live Linux DVD, run from RAM, no internet, no storage, curtains closed, and use Ian Coleman's site (USB stick, NOT online!) to reproduce your keys.

[bitmover]

In that case, I prefer to confirm I can reproduce the address from my backup (on a safe air-gapped system running from RAM). Especially for high value transactions, I don't want to use a hot wallet.

When I am paranoid about an address that I want to 'check' in my wallet, I sign a message.

Signed message is a great tool to confirm ownership. If you can sign and verify, you can spend.

This will only tell you have the private key that moment, but it will not tell you the backup you have will generate the same private key next time when you restore your wallet

Can this happen in a rare case?

I think this could only happen if you  are looking for an address/key very deep inside. For example, if it is a wallet with like 50+ addresses in the same path, you have to manually tell the wallet to look for those address (the default in wallets is to look for about 40-50 address per derivation path)