CoPay is on the phone but not showing the prior wallet. That is why I am trying to figure out exactly where in the file system of the phone the keys were kept.

I can't find the phrase. So am trying to find a file containing the keys on the physical device.

I am trying to recover an old CoPay multi-signature wallet and want to find the keys that were on a device as a co-signer. I still have the physical iPhone, which has been upgraded and restored several times, as well as many backups of the iPhone. So far as I can tell, these keys were not stored in the backup, but perhaps I am mistaken.

If the keys are not stored on the backup, where were they kept on the device?

I am trying to understand better what happened technically with the Bitcoin Cash SV (BCH-SV) split.

What is puzzling me is that I recently created a Bitcoin Cash (BCH) wallet with an old private key which had bitcoin at the time of the BCH split in 2017. It showed the balance of BCH, which I then sent to another bitcoin cash address in a different wallet (wallet #2).

Now when I try and load that old key into a BCH-SV wallet, it shows the movement of the BCH and says that there is no BCH-SV balance available.

When I import from wallet #2 into a new BCH-SV wallet, is says that I can split the BCH-SV off.

I am not understanding what is happening here in terms of the blockchains. Why would a transfer of the BCH at a date after the BCH-SV split in 2018 result in BCH-SV being available? Are they somehow marking transactions on the BCH blockchain as either BCH alone or BCH and BCH-SV being moved?

This site's registration page for new users is not even using a secure connection. Strongly suspect a scan to try and harvest reused passwords or a drive by attack.

Thanks all for the checking on this. You are both correct, when I rerun this with a test set of keys the order does not matter. I think I must have been somehow confused about which keys I was using and was mixing up different sets.

Neither the order of the keys, nor the particular combination matters, as long as one has a public or private version of all 3 of the required keys.

UPDATE -- please see my last post in this thread. This was caused by some confusion on my part about keys.

When creating a multi signature 2 of 3 wallet using a combination of xprv and xpub keys, it appears that the addresses created by Electrum (v 3.2.3) depend on the particular combination of keys used. For example, say there are 3 keys, A, B, and C.

Wallet 1: One creates a view only 2 of 3 multisig wallet using the 3 xpub keys, xpub A, xpub B, xpub C.

Wallet 2: create a new wallet using 2 of the 3 private keys. If one uses xprv A, xprv B and xpub C, the same addresses are produced as Wallet 1.

Wallet 3: create a new wallet using a different set of 2 of the 3 private keys, say xpub A, xprv B, and xprv C. This wallet now has a different set of addresses.

This does not seem correct. Any ideas on the problem or what algorithm Electrum is using?

These examples work for Electrum 3.2.2, though there are some funky characters in the xprv addresses when you copy and paste them from the web page.

Article about the lawsuit with a link to the complaint at https://www.courthousenews.com/digital-currency-exchange-sued-over-4-year-asset-freeze/

What is the suggested reasonable amount of RAM and storage to run the Ubuntu full node wallet?

Do people have a suggestion for a reasonable amount of RAM and storage to run the Lightning Bitcoin linux full node wallet? I'm trying to setup a new machine to do so. Thanks.

What are people's opinions about the best companies/exchanges for a US resident to use to sell larger numbers of bitcoin?

I agree, legal action is the best way to go.

Interestingly, the vircurex website is still operational and one still sees trades occurring every 12 hours or so.

Strange, I was just sent my "unlocked" BTC. Tracing back in the transactions shows these come from an address with 60 or more BTC in it last December.

Does anyone have any knowledge about who was running Vircurex? I had some coins deposited with them from way back and only recently went back to review the history of their apparent scams.

It seems they are not answering any queries at this point.

While they have not formally announced it, BTC-e recently stated to me that they are no longer dealing with US banks or customers.

This would explain the lower price of BTC on that exchange as USD would be relatively more scarce there.

News on the BTC-e site now that there is a 2 week delay in USD wire transfers due to banking problems.

Anyone have further information or insight on this?

The other factor to bear in mind is that a large number of potential creditors may not file a claim due to the legal ramifications of claiming those Mt. Gox accounts. Claims can also be disputed, and certainly MK's claim(s) will be. One estimate from a friend who has dealt with the accounts of a lot of the gambling sites is that roughly 50% of the accounts probably lie fallow.

I have been wondering about these issues also. As I recall, the main trading engine was replaced after the crash in 2013. Prior to that time, was the exchange using the Satoshi client for a backend? (Thus slow RPC calls and easily overloaded.)

Speculation here, but what if during the 2011 hack or its recovery, someone obtained a copy of the wallet files corresponding to the hot wallets? Rather than simply stealing all the BTC in the hot wallet at that time, they realized that they could now predict the future wallet addresses and private keys that would be used by the exchange. You could perhaps generate the sequence of keys, since it is a pseudo-random number generator, and watch the blockchain for when the addresses accumulated enough bitcoin. Then use the private keys to transfer bitcoin to other addresses.

Under this scenario, you don't have to have continuing access to the exchange. And MK may have thought the old hot wallet files didn't matter since the old addresses wouldn't have balances anymore.

The fact that blocks of 100 BTC or other denominations were moved onto other exchanges, and even Mt. Gox, does suggest it may be possible for law enforcement, with subpoena power, to figure out who controlled those accounts and where the cash went on subsequent withdrawal.

All of these problems would have been caught early on by consistent reconciliation of the book balance of BTC against the wallet balances on the blockchain. This is like Finance 101, but it appears that MK did not do this simple step, which would have caught the losses at a much earlier stage.

Hi All,

I will be in NYC on the 14th and 15th of November, 2014, and am wondering if there are any bitcoin related meetups happening on those days/evenings?

thanks,
Peter

Chase also just refused an international wire transfer to BTC-e, claiming that "the government didn't allow it". I'm closing my accounts with them.