Apa lagi jika usernya jarang2 pakai bookmark, ngecek langsung ke thread jadi solusi terbaik tuk menghindari website phising.

Bahkan beberapa member juga punya server electrum sendiri kayak loycev, dll.

At best, I'd carry a pruned blockchain with me so I can access my wallet from my "spare laptop" (a fully encrypted cheap sturdy disposable laptop).

To have chainstate on HDD, you'll need 24 GB RAM and 16 GB dbcache to get decent performance. The slow disk is not a limitation on my server with 32 GB RAM.

I'm with Linus Torvalds on this:
Why create a backup if I can download it again in a (long) day?

4. 1+1=0

7. 1+1=1

They're literally only here to increase their profit

Quoting for images to show up:

- Post visibility/ranking is determined by sum of community investment (total sats spent on the post from all users) -- halved every x hours so as to keep things fresh.

At best, I'd carry a pruned blockchain with me so I can access my wallet from my "spare laptop" (a fully encrypted cheap sturdy disposable laptop).

To have chainstate on HDD, you'll need 24 GB RAM and 16 GB dbcache to get decent performance. The slow disk is not a limitation on my server with 32 GB RAM.

I'm with Linus Torvalds on this:
Why create a backup if I can download it again in a (long) day?

Occam's razor: isn't it much more likely someone is either trying to scam you, or wants to use you as a money mule for his criminal money?

<...>
But you can just as well mess up your own cold storage setup. In general, I'd say a Trezor is more Newbie-proof than your own cold storage setup, and it's much easier to use.

They can, and they will. But by then, anyone who sent stolen funds (that could be you OP) took off with the USDT already, leaving the victim to deal with the fallout.

That's a lie. Fees from Paypal > bank account > exchange > crypto are not high.

---

---

I'll stop posting here. OP's "reasons" why this is should be safe are exactly what someone who wants to exchange money from stolen Paypal accounts would say. Anyone who takes this offer has been warned.

stolen Paypal accounts

Anyone who believes such a claim from an anonymous stranger on the internet is at very least naive.

Anyone taking your offer can't verify this.

Tell me this: why don't you send your clean 100-150K USD per year from Paypal to your bank account? I can think of several reasons not to do this, and not a single one of those reasons involves something legal.

Thanks LoyceV for mentioning it. I recall something like that but my memory is getting worse over the years.

Thanks! I didn't notice, as my Electrum was still connected. But when I restart it, it doesn't connect.
I really hate dealing with certificates I didn't expect I'd still be running Fulcrum after a year.

It looks like it's exactly one year old:
By the time it expired, I forgot how I created it.... This is a reminder for next year:
I can't add this to a cronjob: "openssl" asks interactive questions. Remind me before August 18, 2027

I don't read what Satofan44 writes, but I'd bet a lot that his comments are honoring the title of this thread.


I don't want to play devil's advocate here, I mean moron's advocate, but you've made me reread the rules, and I don't find a single one against burst posting as such. It's always been a managers' rule, not a forum one.

The forum doesn't know "the person" behind that account. I'd say the company should take full responsibility for their employees: the lack of training is their problem. Even their new account keeps breaking this forum rule:

Wipe the laptop, install Linux, keep it offline. Encrypt the drive if you're sure you won't forget the password. Create, test and securely store your backups before funding a wallet.

I agree that this might be cheaper than a hardware wallet. But I always think it is safer for people who aren't very knowledged about bitcoin to buy a hardware wallet.

Balik lagi ini gimana user bersiap menghadapi risikonya atau tidak. Di sisi lain memastikan signature benar tiap download app baru juga bukan kebiasaan yang buruk, mau pemula atau sudah punya pengalaman di kripto sekalipun. Toh hal ini bisa dipake di app lain selain kripto, apalagi yang rawan jadi target phishing dst. Belum lagi kalau website resminya jadi target supply chain attack kayak yang sudah pernah terjadi di beberapa website, dimana scammer mengubah link tertentu ke app palsu atau file palsu yang sengaja mereka inject ke website target.

Namun, kita tidak tahu sampai kapan website Electrum tersebut masih aman diakses, dan file yang disediakan disana masih benar-benar asli (belum ada yang mengganti dengan file palsu).

Masih ingat kasus yang pernah terjadi pada situ MyEtherWallet yang sempat DNS Servernya terkena hijack?

This can go wrong both ways: you're not "friends" and you're not "family". This feature is meant for people you trust, which isn't the case here.

For anyone even thinking about doing this: this is how you end up in prison for Money Muling! Don't fall for this!

Like LoyceV wrote many times that he taught his kids to live privately.

For my next seed phrase, I'm going to add my own entropy to Trezor's entropy. I'm not planning to do this any time soon, as it's going to be time-consuming to do safe (offline, on an air-gapped system running from RAM without storage, closed curtains and no recording devices phones nearby).
My (current) plan: get a new seed phrase from Trezor, convert it to binary:
1011011010101 etcetera.
Flip a coin 256 times:
0101101101010 etcetera.
Add the digits together:
1. 1+0=1
2. 0+1=1
3. 1+0=1
4. 1+1=0
5. 0+1=1
6. 0+1=1
7. 1+1=1
....
255. 1+1=0
256. 0+0=0
I'll create my new seed phrase from this. I'll use and compare different pieces of software to make sure both create the same seed phrase from the binary input.
This way, even if one of the random inputs is compromised, adding them together ensures it's still completely random.
Real random + flawed random = real random.
Real random + real random = real random.

---

---

Being paranoid doesn't mean they're not trying to get your coins!

But you have to see the positve side of the story.  Considering how many show offs are on the Internet today, this will become so normalized that ALL houses will eventually have a history of 'Rich Bitcoiners'!

I'd say "Don't fix it if it ain't broken!" applies. You have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

This is what I would do: get a second hand business laptop (a few years old), preferrably with working battery, low-power CPU and 8 GB RAM. By now all of them should come with SSD. Depending on where you live this can be cheaper than a hardware wallet.
Wipe the laptop, install Linux, keep it offline. Encrypt the drive if you're sure you won't forget the password. Create, test and securely store your backups before funding a wallet.

Vosotros cómo lo veis? he visto en el norte que recomiendan mover los fondos de toda hardware wallets con semillas "de fábrica". De verdad hay tanta urgencia?

For my next seed phrase, I'm going to add my own entropy to Trezor's entropy. I'm not planning to do this any time soon, as it's going to be time-consuming to do safe (offline, on an air-gapped system running from RAM without storage, closed curtains and no recording devices phones nearby).
My plan: get a new seed phrase from Trezor, convert it to binary:
1011011010101 etcetera.
Flip a coin 256 times:
0101101101010 etcetera.
Add the digits together:
1. 1+0=1
2. 0+1=1
3. 1+0=1
4. 1+1=0
5. 0+1=1
6. 0+1=1
7. 1+1=1
....
255. 1+1=0
256. 0+0=0
I'll create my new seed phrase from this. I'll use and compare different pieces of software to make sure both create the same seed phrase from the binary input.
This way, even if one of the random inputs is compromised, adding them together ensures it's still completely random.
Real random + flawed random = real random.
Real random + real random = real random.

---

---

Being paranoid doesn't mean they're not trying to get your coins!

Hi @LoyceV, I also needed inputs. Do you still have them? 🙈

The reason is freedom of speech without consequences to your main account:

That would be easily solved if another criteria, like being a full member as I was suggesting above, was added.

Apart from that, the forum is as free as possible but that doesn't mean that every account gets to participate in everything.

There should be stricter criteria for those who create contests with monetary prizes.
On the other hand, this doesn't have to be an official forum rule; it's up to each event organizer to define the rules they deem appropriate. It's then up to the users to accept and participate, or not.

A user on the forum leave me a feedback on my profile which is just  a lie.   I also left a feedback on joker_josue but it's not displaying to other's like his one is showing on my profile.

And how much it will be matter for a feedback

It still doesn't load properly, but the error message is a bit shorter:

A user on the forum leave me a feedback on my profile which is just  a lie.   I also left a feedback on joker_josue but it's not displaying to other's like his one is showing on my profile.

And how much it will be matter for a feedback

...
But why?
...

Why not give each additional alt accounts a longer sigban? First one a year, second one 2 years, third 3 years. That way, the account farmer won't be overwhelmed when he gets his signatures back

You're posting this in Meta, so I assume you want this to be a forum-wide rule. Therefore, I voted No. This is the second time today I'm quoting parts of this post:

https://mempool.bitmixlist.org/tx/7f3acd72a6401ff1e852e31ac771c758163febfb912a8c1278fdcb769b390e71 doesn't work for me:
It works on the original: https://mempool.space/tx/7f3acd72a6401ff1e852e31ac771c758163febfb912a8c1278fdcb769b390e71

Transaction not found.
Waiting for it to appear in the mempool...

What's the verdict on Newbie Olesia Hulych?

That Trezor rebuilding the same wallet is the proof you were after, not something to worry about. Two different things are getting tangled here.

The 24 words are your BIP39 seed. Those come from the fixed 2048-word list and carry a checksum, which is why a Ledger can only ever make BIP39 ones.

Your passphrase (the 25th-word feature) sits on top and works differently. It's an arbitrary string: any letters, any case, spaces included, and it's not meant to come from the BIP39 list at all. So your "custom English words" passphrase is completely normal. Nothing non-standard is happening.

The two get fed together through the same PBKDF2 step on any BIP39 wallet, and that spits out one specific set of keys. Same 24 words plus the same passphrase gives the same keys on a Ledger, a Trezor, or Electrum. That's why the Trezor came back with the identical balance and history. You've already shown you can restore it on other hardware, which was your original question.

Worth sitting with the fake-passphrase test you ran. It "didn't succeed" because a wrong passphrase never errors out, it quietly opens a different wallet that's empty. The passphrase carries no checksum and nothing to validate it against, so any string you type opens some valid wallet, just not yours. That makes it the one piece you can't afford to lose or mistype: if the 24 words survive but the exact passphrase doesn't, the coins are gone, and a 12-word custom phrase like yours can't be brute-forced back. Back it up character for character, case and spacing included, same care as the seed.

Then keep verifying the way you just did: rebuild on a second device and confirm the first receive address matches. The seed and passphrase always produce the same keys, but a wallet only shows the same addresses if it uses the same derivation path, so that address match is the real check.

Thank you — the story is real, and it happens more often than people think. Many do need help after losing their seed phrase or password. But you rarely hear someone say, “I got my 10 BTC recovered.” Most prefer to stay quiet to avoid unwanted attention and the risks that come with it. What people do talk about openly is being scammed. This silence naturally contributes to the bias against recovery services.

This message is simply a reminder: don’t lose hope, and keep searching for your wallet backups.

As I understand, direct advertising is not allowed here. Still, we’d like to become part of this forum community, just as Dave did. He also faced a lot of criticism at first, but over time, he managed to establish himself here.

nc50lc's read fits: a padding error means those ckeys sit under a different master key, not a wrong IV (a wrong IV still pads clean and just mismatches the pubkey), so it's a half-finished passphrase change. Note that btcrecover and john only ever test the mkey, so you cracked the password to one master key, never proof the funded keys decrypt. The one shot without an old backup is that the old mkey may still be in the file: wallet.dat is Berkeley DB and it doesn't zero overwritten records, so on a copy, dig through it with db_dump or a hex editor for a second mkey-like record in the free pages (pywallet's --recover scans raw space for key structures but has no dedicated mkey carving, so it's a long shot on its own). Pull any extra mkey candidate and brute it with the same wordlist. If there's no old backup, no second mkey anywhere, and no memory of the old password, those keys are gone.

It's a lot to write, but I will try.

Your raw Base58 numbers are right, but they aren't the interval you hand Kangaroo. The last 4 bytes of the payload are the Base58Check checksum, and in both your cases that checksum sits entirely inside the unknown suffix. It's a double-SHA256 of the key, so it's fully determined the moment the key is fixed, which means it carries no search entropy at all. Drop those 32 bits and case A is a ~50-bit interval, case B ~62 bits, not 82 and 94.

Derivation that gives you exact bounds:

1. Take your known prefix. Decode prefix + "1"*N and prefix + "z"*N as plain Base58 integers, not Base58Check. Those two strings have invalid checksums, so a checked decode will just reject them. Call the results W_min and W_max.
2. Strip version and checksum:
   k_min = (W_min - (0x80 << 288)) >> 32
   k_max = (W_max - (0x80 << 288)) >> 32
   The subtraction removes the 0x80 version byte, the >>32 drops the 4 checksum bytes.
3. range = k_max - k_min + 1, which lands at about 58^N / 2^32.

Yes, it's effectively one continuous interval. The true W sits in [W_min, W_max] and the subtract-and-shift is monotonic, so the real key is always inside [k_min, k_max] by construction. I enumerated one full interval end to end and every key in it reproduces the fixed prefix, bar a single key at each boundary, so it's one contiguous block. The 2^32 for the checksum is already baked into the interval width, so it doesn't strip anything further out inside the range.

The checksum is not a filter you apply while searching. Kangaroo solves against the pubkey, so it walks straight to the key inside the interval and never touches the checksum. The checksum only shows up in how you derive the bounds.

Set your Kangaroo range to the interval width, so around 50 and 62 bits, and start = k_min. Overstating range to 82 just wastes some time, but the real trap is skipping the >>32: feed it the raw W interval and your k sits ~2^32 too high, so it finds nothing and it looks like the whole method failed. Also keep every test vector strictly mainnet uncompressed, 37-byte payload, no 0x01 flag. One compressed key (52 chars) throws off both the offset and the shift.

On the 3090 both are trivial once the interval's correct. 50 bits is ~2^25 jumps, sub-second; 62 bits is ~2^31, a second or two at your 2.24 GK/s. Post the synthetic vector if you want a second pair of eyes on the bounds before you trust the derivation.

I hope you will find this information useful.

Is self-custody still the best option for holding Bitcoin long term?

Guys, just want you to know my point of view.

It can be a good option to hold Bitcoin for the long term, but it comes with more responsibility.

The benefit is controlling the private keys on your own rather than relying on a custodian.

I also recommend offline or hardware wallets for savings.

The risk is losing or exposing your seed phrase unintentionally. If someone gets it, they can potentially take your BTC; if you lose it, recovery may not be possible.

So, my view: for long-term Bitcoin, self-custody makes sense if you’re willing to learn basic security and keep your backup offline and secure.

I also want your opinion. Why do you think, guys?

I agree that storing Bitcoin across multiple wallets can reduce the risk of losing everything if one wallet is compromised. However, I don’t think changing wallet addresses every few years is necessary by itself. Good security practices, such as protecting your seed phrase, using wallets that security is high, and avoiding phishing links, are more important. I personally use Oppi Wallet for keeping some of my Bitcoin separate from other holdings.

I think buy-and-hold is probably the simplest approach for a small investor. Bitcoin can still have major price swings. Trading, lending, or other strategies may offer additional benefits, but they also come with more risk. Personally, I’d keep things simple and only invest what I’m comfortable holding for the long term.

But guys, can you tell me which wallet I should use to keep my bitcoin?

I have using one right now!

I agree with this. The search function is more useful than many new members realize. Before starting a thread, I think it is worth checking not only the title but also a few related keywords, because an older discussion may already contain the answers or experiences you are looking for.
It also helps us contribute something new instead of repeating the same points. Sometimes the best way to start a good discussion is to search first, learn from what has already been shared, and then add a fresh perspective. I believe that habit can make the forum more useful for everyone.

This is a good example of why beginners like me should take wallet security seriously. A seed phrase is not something to type or display casually, especially in a public place where someone could be watching.

I think many people focus on learning how to buy or use Bitcoin but don't spend enough time learning how to protect it. Simple habits like keeping your seed phrase private and being aware of your surroundings can prevent a serious loss.

Sometimes, being careful with the basics is more important than knowing everything about crypto.

As a beginner, I’m learning that Bitcoin isn't just about buying and making money. Security, carefulness, and having the right information are very important.
Some key lessons I’ve learned:

•Always protect your wallet and recovery information.
•Double-check wallet addresses before sending.
•Be careful with scams and unrealistic promises.
•Never invest money you cannot afford to lose.
•Do your own research before making decisions.

I’m still learning, so I’d appreciate any additional safety tips from experienced members.

I don't think changing a wallet address every 3–8 years should be treated as a security rule. It can be useful for privacy, especially when an address has been used repeatedly, but it does not automatically make the funds more secure.
If the seed phrase or private key has been compromised, simply generating a new address from the same wallet will not solve the problem. In that situation, the important step is to move the funds to a completely secure wallet with a new seed.
For long-term holders, I think the priority should be protecting the seed phrase, using a properly secured wallet, keeping reliable backups, and avoiding unnecessary transactions. Address changes should mainly be considered from a privacy perspective rather than as a fixed 3–8 year security routine.

https://mempool.bitmixlist.org/tx/7f3acd72a6401ff1e852e31ac771c758163febfb912a8c1278fdcb769b390e71 doesn't work for me:
It works on the original: https://mempool.space/tx/7f3acd72a6401ff1e852e31ac771c758163febfb912a8c1278fdcb769b390e71

Why not give each additional alt accounts a longer sigban? First one a year, second one 2 years, third 3 years. That way, the account farmer won't be overwhelmed when he gets his signatures back

or they stack. 1 yr ban on one account. find 2 more alts now all 3 accounts get a 3 year sigban. found another? cool. 4 years on linked all accounts now.

Why not give each additional alt accounts a longer sigban? First one a year, second one 2 years, third 3 years. That way, the account farmer won't be overwhelmed when he gets his signatures back

Can't you just enable manual fee editing, and add 1 sat?

Maybe I'm missing some OPSEC reason here, but why not just get a cheap second hand laptop for this? I'm a big fan of "old" business laptops: anything with low-power CPU, 8+ GB RAM and working battery is great to wipe and install Linux.

I have some dust to play with, so here's a successful test (txid redacted but it's in mainnet):


@Butterzone, the "(lambda: 0)" command isn't necessary now if you're using Electrum v4.6.2 and above.

(v4.5.8 & I cannot safely upgrade to a higher version of Electrum without buying a new computer)

I can't really test it as I don't need to make a transaction, but based on mempool.space's future blocks, 0.1 sat/vbyte is not going to confirm any time soon. But mempool isn't full either, so the minimum fee should still get accepted.

That's weird: my previous post shows the number of connected clients has been higher, and I assume you don't have more than 12 different clients running:

I don't know if this is true news or maybe there is another story behind all this Coldcard disaster. Many conspiracies occur and this kind of crime needs to be taken seriously.
If the CTO of Coldcard is guilty and suspected, there should be a more thorough investigation to find out who the real criminals are behind this hack.
Because the losses are so huge and even Many of them report that their entire lifetime savings are depleted in an instant.

-snip-
My conclusion is that ColdCard are not sincere and they are rather complacent. Telling people to still buy their products at this point is a sign of insensitivity.

I try to avoid companies that kick down competitors instead of just showing their own product. That looks more like dirty politics than technology.

Should the former Meric source receive a similar tag?

Can't you ask the "AI" to explain how it created those wallets?

cloud based frontier stuff sure it stores and learns from everything we feed it.

This is outdated, right?

ColdCard just caused the most catastrophic loss in the entire history of Bitcoin hardware wallets due to shockingly shoddy code, and the firmware fix for that caused some people's devices to brick, and the CEO spent the last 2 weeks deleting old posts on twitter as the company basically went into radio silence.... but other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

There's nothing special about ColdCard's hardware. It's cheap plastic. And some aspects of the design weren't even thought through, like the fact that the camera for the QR reader faces up, so you can't even see the screen while you try to scan a QR code. What the whut?

If you already own one and you want to accept the risks that come with staying with Coinkite... do what you think is best. Self custody comes with self-responsibility, so be honest with yourself about the risks. I have trouble imagining that company will even exist in a year, and there's no way I'd ever trust them. I wouldn't trust their hardware. I wouldn't trust their code. I wouldn't trust anything they say.

I wouldn't call 10% a huge discount. Whoever still buys that thing can't be helped.

I got curious and went to see. I didn't think it was that big of a discount, not even 15%.
A big discount would be over 50%... even then I doubt they would make any sales. I mean, the worst part is that they're likely to continue making sales, because many people didn't even realize what happened, and how serious it was/is.

-snip-
I would hope that retail sellers who have stock would hang on to it, and would take note of attempts to either purchase it, or attempts by Coinkite (or suspected associates) to have it returned.

That's basically what I wanted to say. But personalities aside, I think banning signature campaigns even temporarily is a bad idea. The fact that very prosperous companies want to advertise on this forum puts this forum alongside those places where prosperous companies want to advertise. It's very prestigious and it's business. You don't play with such things. You will never hear a grand stadium going, "We decided to ban adds on our premises for a couple of weeks to see what happens." No one does that.

ColdCard just caused the most catastrophic loss in the entire history of Bitcoin hardware wallets due to shockingly shoddy code, and the firmware fix for that caused some people's devices to brick, and the CEO spent the last 2 weeks deleting old posts on twitter as the company basically went into radio silence.... but other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

There's nothing special about ColdCard's hardware. It's cheap plastic. And some aspects of the design weren't even thought through, like the fact that the camera for the QR reader faces up, so you can't even see the screen while you try to scan a QR code. What the whut?

If you already own one and you want to accept the risks that come with staying with Coinkite... do what you think is best. Self custody comes with self-responsibility, so be honest with yourself about the risks. I have trouble imagining that company will even exist in a year, and there's no way I'd ever trust them. I wouldn't trust their hardware. I wouldn't trust their code. I wouldn't trust anything they say.

I dunno.  The hardware is still, in my opinion and with limited analysis, the 'best in class'.  In my (somewhat limited) view, they had a lot of terrific ideas about security, and a knack for making the UI quite intuitive.  The documentation is fantastic, and the source code is available.  I just wouldn't be super confident that the binary actually represents the totality of the source code and it could be the case that they have some 'special patches'...I doubt that very many people availed of the feature of being able to build it oneself vs. just scoring one of Coinkit's release binaries.

Actually, I had some suspicions based on the observation that the product was almost 'too good.'  At least based on the common understanding of the size of their development team.

After a thorough analysis of their hardware, some care in sourcing, and a well structured and well know open source development team, the kit would be pretty compelling to me.  At least the Q.

I wouldn't call 10% a huge discount. Whoever still buys that thing can't be helped.

I can almost guarantee this is going to happen with lightning network in near future.
It could also happen with other bitcoin projects and bridges that swap BTC with other chains.

It's probably just another speculation move from traders.
I do however see more people actually using monero to purchase things.

My guess is that people are anticipating this to happen again after the Coldcard vulnerability left hackers with 1596 BTC.

I had the same annoying experience of sticky residu from the sticker.

In January this year, Monero peaked to $700+ after some hacker bought and later sold a lot of Monero. My guess is that people are anticipating this to happen again after the Coldcard vulnerability left hackers with 1596 BTC.

[...] If you are talking about diversification, should keep some of your assets on the ledger device (despite all the negative sentiment toward them, which is entirely justified, these devices remain secure for the time being). I wouldn't get rid of the device, as it could come in handy in unforeseen circumstances (like a failure of your primary device) or for storing smaller amounts. [...]

I had the same annoying experience of sticky residu from the sticker.

In January this year, Monero peaked to $700+ after some hacker bought and later sold a lot of Monero. My guess is that people are anticipating this to happen again after the Coldcard vulnerability left hackers with 1596 BTC.