Bitcoin-qt put -rescan in the debug window and hit enter sync it did nothing. I must have been so tired that I forgot that I had unlocked it. Jun 2, Messages: This reduces the flushing frequency by out factor 2 rescan more. My server is currently at 86G for Bitcoin and 43G for Electrum 10k history. Problem is, the change can be large. I like to use Bitcoin core to watch addresses but have always avoided running a rescan because it can take so long.
The first is a more accurate estimate of actual disk usage, but is not deterministic. If your node has pruning enabled, this will entail re-downloading and processing the entire blockchain. New merchants are welcome to announce their services for Bitcoin, but after those have been announced they are no longer news and should not be re-posted. So there's a good point of using full client. Jul 31, Messages: I had recovered my missing Bitcoins!
Upgrading directly from 0. Multi-wallet is enabled by using more than one -wallet argument when starting Bitcoin, either on rescan command line or in the Bitcoin out file. And newly-downloaded blocks should update the wallet anyway. Nov 17, Messages: I lost my sync because I can't get my password right on bitcoin qt. This allows for longer bitcoin-qt and means estimates adjust more quickly to changes in conditions.
I am now starting again from scratch on my Mac with bitcore bitcoind Lesson of the day, a change in default settings can do much more for UX than crazy complex optimizations. Nice PR that sped up rescanning: I think the core devs are planning a feature where you can add and remove transactions from your wallet. Especially with pruning, something like that is necessary IMO. Maybe there should be a standard protocol for getting "rescan data" from third-parties.
It's probably possible to rescan via the network using bloom filtered getblock requests, though maybe it'd be really slow. Electrum's solution has problems with decentralization, security, and privacy.
Maybe something in that general vein could be added to Core, though. Once micropayment channel technology is working well, maybe you could pay nodes an extremely small fee to do rescan lookups for you. And then if you want to receive these extra payments, you can run a full node with an address index or something similar, but with better privacy. One problem that comes to mind is how to check that the node you're paying isn't just accepting the payment and reporting, "no transactions found".
If you don't run your own full node, you have to accept that there will be costs associated with it. You'd have to have lookups from separate nodes. There's nothing to prevent a node from giving you a list of all but a single transaction on your list of keys, you'd have to get the list from other sources to make sure that nobody is cheating you. But that falls into the same problems as the current network with sybil attacks. If you don't run a full node you have to trust that not everybody is going to try to cheat you, or you have to run a full node.
What are the problems with Electrum? I run a node on my server because my laptop can't bear to run Bitcoin, I understand the privacy implications, but security and decentralization? The only problem I see with bundling Electrum with Core would be the increased space requirements. My server is currently at 86G for Bitcoin and 43G for Electrum 10k history. If you run your own Electrum server, there's no problem.
Without your own server, Electrum works by joining a centralized IRC channel, choosing a random user from there, and trying to connect to them as a server. BitcoinJ meanwhile errs in the opposite direction toward centralization: BitcoinJ only ever connects to nodes returned by certain centralized servers. If even one of the centralized servers is compromised, the attacker has a lot of Sybil potential, which is especially powerful against non-full nodes.
As long as some sort of centralization is required to prevent Sybil attacks, probably the centralized servers should work like Tor's directory authorities, where the authorities vote on a "networkStatus consensus", and the majority of authorities have to agree or else the client stops working.
This allows the authorities to actively work against Sybil attacks without allowing a few compromised authorities from bringing down the whole system. Though Tor has had some notable failures in the area of Sybil prevention, at least one of which allowed for a total failure of Tor's security and the identification of a hidden service By that same logic, Bitcoin's first run is also centralized in how it first connects to the network.
If many nodes ran Electrum nodes, the same peer discovery can be used to find a node, last time I checked, I'm one of less than 50 public electrum nodes. It would be like "hey, I'm a full node, but I also have these extra commands you can ask for". Even just using blockexplorer to check an address the government can associate IP with the address. So there's a good point of using full client. Run your own electrum node and only connect to it. And make it public so you can help people who don't share the same privacy concerns.
News articles that do not contain the word "Bitcoin" are usually off-topic. This subreddit is not about general financial news. Submissions that are mostly about some other cryptocurrency belong elsewhere.
Promotion of client software which attempts to alter the Bitcoin protocol without overwhelming consensus is not permitted. If a wallet for some reason does not contain an expected transaction or address dump the data with pywallet and search for any relevant information. What people believe though, is that their old backups are still good.
As soon as you generate an address which happens on transactions , you have used an address from a pool that NONE of your backups have. It was because of the encryption reset that I thought I had lost the coins forever, the backup I had was unencrypted and thus useless for the missing change transaction.
Hopefully this will save some people the agony of loosing coins in the future, it hurts more when you know it was your own fault! The second worst reason to lose coins is by trusting someone that you shouldn't. Still out "just two" btc from bitjack It was gambling but with absolutely zero chance of getting anything back, even if you win. I deserved it I know. People need a FAQ or something. And every BTC site should link to it.
If I send someone a payment which generates a new address , any backup of my wallet. From what I've understood, it's only once you go past the addresses it pre-generates, or if you've just encrypted your wallet and generated new ones.
If something goes wrong after the st transaction, and you have to go to your backup, the st address won't be in the backup. What are the implications of not having the st address? If you used that address to send bitcoins vs receiving them? The problem is that each time you make a transaction, you probably don't have the exact right mix of coins in your wallet to make up the amount you're trying to send.
So the client picks a bunch of coins that's a little more than the amount you're sending, and sends the excess to a new address in your own wallet.
This excess is known as the 'change'. If the change is sent to the st address and you revert to a backup which doesn't contain that st address then you'll never be able to spend the change. Yes, but at least with Electrum the "change" is the entire remainder of that address. So even if you only send 1 btc out of an address that has 30btc, the remaining 29btc will be moved to a change address. The change, and anything received to an address generated on the 'receive' tab by clicking 'new address' after the pool of pre-generated addresses was exhausted.
Problem is, the change can be large. If you have a single BTC coin and spend 0. The idea tat your backup doesn't have newly generated addresses is specific to the newly encrypted wallet. Regular backups of unencrypted wallets, and recent backups of encrypted wallets do not fall in this categoary, above. Generally your backup has new, unused addresses that are in the main wallet. If you do transactions, you need to make a new backup.
The pool of unused addresses is reset through the process of encrypting, so your older backup doesn't have the current pool from your current wallet. So ideally, after every transaction, clients should automatically create a backup of wallet. Your backup contains not-yet-used addresses. So back up after each 50 new addresses you use and you should be fine. You only need to incrypt once. The idea here is that old backups are no good after you take the one-time step of encrypting.
If you take the step of encrypting, create a new backup. Your old backup is now stale. The more I hear about the design of bitcoins, the more it seems like they were made to make you lose your money. The founder's original bitcoin proposal. The system really is beautiful. The problem is that most people have no idea what they're doing and make stupid mistakes. Thank you for the paper.
Yeah, I know that mathematically it's beautiful. By the way, is the part "Reclaiming disc space" implemented? I thought the transaction log takes gigabytes now; does no one just care? I really don't know.
I do know that bitcoin has a number of built in features that aren't being taken advantage of right now, though. But that should change eventually. Or be more responsible when it comes to learning about how it works and preserving your own wealth. We've become too reliant on other entities to take care of us.
Safety and caring about how thing works comes after the thing is designed to be reasonably safe in the first place. Unless the whole point of the enterprise was to teach people a lesson, you cannot justify flaws in design like that.
That's not design, that's just life, man. We are all responsible for ourselves. Making everything dumbed down to the lowest common denominator just creates unreasonable cost and worse, wasteful government interference. I think the problem is that the learning curve can seem very steep, but online banking can seem like rocket science at first too.
Both are still VERY useful tools, if used responsibly. Responsible is, in this case, learning the system you are using. Invest a little time so it is familiar, and suddenly that 'big scary' wild thing turns into your lap dog. Every single thing can be familiarized with, but do you agree that there's still good design and bad design? Because if I'm to follow your logic, then every design is good.
After all, you can get used to it. While I understand you'd like it to be click-n-go me too! Getting use to anything new like the example of online banking takes some investment. If you're not willing to invest the time to learn the current state of design, then it's probably not for you yet. I also look forward to when everything is super easy and threads like this are never seen.
For now though, it's just the nature of the beast. Get that beast to work FOR you, tame it. Maybe that includes improving the design!! Get involved in BitCoin and help make it easier for the Average Joe to use! It is a currency for the people, BY the people. You could be one of them. The fact that Bitcoin is not totally "click-n-go" right now is great for speculators. Make hay while the sun shines!
I think the point you're making is, it will climb quite a bit higher from here as things get easier to use for the masses. I agree, and hope so! You're the kind of a person who thinks that installing a "Detonate this plane" button, coloring it green and marking with a headphone picture is safe, as long as you state that it's a detonation button in a manual that nobody reads?
I kinda agree with your in general, but seeing all these "completely unexpected loss of money" stories I just said that bitcoins are too flammable. I dunno why you guys are so keen to object that point as if that was a personal attack. Like you said, we don't have to decide between "utter crap" and "flawless in all regards", there's a lot of gray area in between.
If you can't take the time to learn about a revolutionary currency that will also store your wealth safely if properly used, don't use it. If you want to encrypt it use TrueCrypt or 7zip. This way you get a true copy of the original wallet.
Armory claims that it's wallets are deterministic, and a single backup covers every address ever generated by it, past and future.
Is this true, or should I be worried? As long as your balance is verified and has no "unconfirmeds", you should be ok to spend? Yes , but if in doubt check blockchain. If anything goes wrong while you are syncing it will be a lot longer before its noticed, in my case this resulted in a lot of confusion about what happened and when. Can you explain why this is important? As I understand it, this shouldn't cause any problems. The wallet probably won't broadcast your transactions until the blockchain has finished syncing, but will do so once it is up to date.
I just transfered coins to a wallet that is currently syncing. I'm impatient and hoping they show up once the sync is done I think you will be fine.
I was asking why the previous post was saying not to do what you did, because I don't think it's a problem. I actually saw all the PSA's not to keep your coins in an exchange, on silk road, etc.
I was successful withdrawing from Mt. Gox, but when I went to withdraw the 1. I know , the coins seemingly vanished. No entry in the ledger, nothing. I guess you would start by finding the transaction ID of the withdrawal from Silkroad and checking to make sure it went to the correct address?
That's actually pretty damn exciting to read; I'm sure it's awful when they're your bitcoins that are missing, but I really love the hunt, as it were. Hell, I'd probably start up a business trying to recover wallet files for people if it wouldn't require them to send me their wallets and trust me not to steal the contents, heh.
Good job on the recovery and glad you found 'em! Do not use bitcoin-qt unless you know perfectly how it treats the change and the addresses.
I have almost lost my bitcoins because i wanted to use the same wallet in two different computers. If you want to use a client multibit and electrum are more human friendly. If you want to use your pocket money wherever you are use an online wallet. Still trying to wrap my head around how qt manages addresses.
I get it for the most part, but what's the issue with using the same wallet on 2 computers? If you send from one computer it might generate a new address for the change return that is not in the pregenerated ones that got to the second computer when you copied over the wallet. So now your second computer doesn't have the private key of the address your change went to, and you don't have some of your money on your second computer.
Can anyone explain what "Encrypting your wallet will reset the pre-generated addresses that are used for change and new addresses. When I think of encrypting a wallet, I think about putting it on an encrypted drive with something like TrueCrypt.
Obviously TrueCrypt isn't going to open the wallet file and change all the keys. So I must misunderstand "encrypt" in this context. Yes, the bitcoin-qt client has its own built-in encryption feature which allows you to see your balance and receive coins without having to know the wallet passphrase, but which will prompt you for the passphrase before allowing you to spend any coins.
See 'encrypt wallet' on the 'settings' menu. By default your wallet is not encrypted, and the pool of pre-generated addresses are saved to disk in plain text. When you encrypt your wallet, you don't want its private keys to have ever been stored on disk in unencrypted form, because careful analysis of the disk may turn up old copies of the keys.
So the encryption process discards the unused pre-generated addresses which have been written to the disk in the clear and makes new ones which never have been. It seems like a better plan would be to remember those pre-generated addresses, but mark them as already used so no bitcoins will ever automatically get sent to them.
There's no reason to ever forget about an address you've generated before. Well, if you've never used the address or shown it to the user, and you've already written it to disk in an insecure manner, why keep it?
Because of OP's situation: Every address is a key that could possibly unlock usage of some bitcoins on the chain, and they don't take up that much space, so it's silly to throw away any that might've seen use somewhere. In that case the other copy of the wallet would have the private key.
This is also useful if you are importing more than 1 private key into your wallet: bitcoind importprivkey 1zbcvs. "My Label" false bitcoind importprivkey 1zbcvs. "My Label" false bitcoind importprivkey 1zbcvs. "My Label" false bitcoind stop # One of the following bitcoind -rescan bitcoin-qt -rescan. tl;dr: If you deposited to your old deposit address, your coins will show up in your account on Thursday morning, Pacific. Out of sync bitcoin-qt debug console bitcoins sky news arabia Initial sync not progressing, BTC sent already, + warning. from the Bitcoin-Qt wallet using the debug . re-downloading the entire blockchain. for a admissions Delete all wallet transactions and only recover those parts of the blockchain thru -rescan on startup (1.