Quote from: Cricktor on September 17, 2024, 01:21:05 PM

I actually like it when you have powerful options available in a wallet, not that I need all of them, presuming you understand them and know what you're doing. I can't say for me that I'd have any use for such a Sighash option that Sparrow offers in its UI. I also can't say that I understand them confidently.

Maybe it would be good to hide or disable them in UI, unless you turn on power-user mode in settings (makes life for programmer(s) less easy and surely there will be some to complain what is power-user worthy and what not.

So far presented details indicate to me that OP was in panic mode and didn't take the time to investigate the error messages and finally thoroughly check all settings before broadcasting transactions (the sloppiness involved likely due to perceived need to rush it).

It's not my intention to point fingers or blame him. Anybody interested in this particular issue should learn from the chain of bad events.

The mystery of the unknown target address remains that kicked OP out of smooth orbit.

I had a moment of panic, but it didn’t affect the outcome because it started after the second transaction was broadcasted. Nothing I did afterward could have influenced the outcome.
I made my first transaction of 0.2 BTC, and it went through fine. However, during my second transaction, after broadcasting it, I immediately realized the recipient address wasn’t mine, itwas replaced. Found log from mempool confirmed that the original address I used was correct, but was replaced very quickly. Also Sparrow wallet log posted in my previous post shows that I tried to cancel the transaction using replace-by-fee (RBF), but it didn’t work because the fee was set too high. Sparrow wallet does not allow to set that high fee. It proves that it was set this way by some third side bot. Obviously this happened due to a null sighash, which allowed to replace the transacton outputs.

Who would be interested in doing something like this? The idea that many bots were competing for the sum until the entire amount was consumed by fees seems incorrect. If that were the case, my Sparrow Wallet log wouldn’t report that I couldn’t replace the transaction due to the abnormally high fee. This proves that the high fee was set in a single action, not through thousands of small, incremental fees until the entire sum was used up.

Also, I’ve tried everything to reproduce this situation with the wallet, but I can’t replicate it. My spacebar is still malfunctioning, but there’s no way this would have caused a 'none' sighash to be selected. To choose that, I would have had to press the tab key several times and use the arrow keys to select the 'none' option, which I definitely didn’t do. I don’t think it was a keyboard issue. I’ve done similar transactions many times and have always used the default settings. This part is still unclear to me.

Regarding Foundry USA, I am still waiting for a reply. I sent a message through their website, two emails - one to their general contact and another to their legal department email and also reached out via X (formerly Twitter). It’s been over a week with no reply.

As far as I can tell, there are no laws covering situations like this, especially since I’m not from the USA.

Well, what else could I do in this case?