Search content
Sort by
Showing 10 of 10 results by Dimi Neutron
The transaction is created in a watch-only wallet, which is online.
But all the signatures are made by offline devices. So I want to connect the trezor to a computer and sign it, offline.
Thanks.
But all the signatures are made by offline devices. So I want to connect the trezor to a computer and sign it, offline.
Thanks.
⭐ Merited by nc50lc (1)
It won't learn about utxos until you go online so i'm guessing that's what you need to do. Take the electrum wallet paired with trezor online.
I went online and it worked. I used Tails, without persistent, I guess it would not compromisse my passphrase.
Thanks for all the help here, guys. If you have more ideas, they will be welcome
-snip-
Yes, it is segwit. I will try all these steps and get back to you here.If so, the commit that I linked might not be the cause of issue.
4.0.9 was the first one I've tested. Also 4.3.4 and 4.3.2. Always the same problem.
I couldn't find the log file in Tails. Where is it?
I really didn't want to go online, it will compromisse my passphrase. Maybe if I use a virtual keyboard, what do you think?
Thanks for your help. I really apreciate it.
Is it SegWit? Try to use Electrum v4.3.2 if the issue will persist.
If not, it may have something to do with this Commit: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/commit/d3227d7489fe327bd40e891a517c86bd207227ec (in v4.3.3)
If still there, enable logging and check if it has something that's related to the error.
You can enable logging in "Tools->Preferences->Misc->Write logs to file" (restart Electrum), reproduce the error and then disable logging.
Log is in "logs" folder inside Electrum's datadir (location).
If not, it may have something to do with this Commit: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/commit/d3227d7489fe327bd40e891a517c86bd207227ec (in v4.3.3)
If still there, enable logging and check if it has something that's related to the error.
You can enable logging in "Tools->Preferences->Misc->Write logs to file" (restart Electrum), reproduce the error and then disable logging.
Log is in "logs" folder inside Electrum's datadir (location).
Yes, it is segwit. I will try all these steps and get back to you here.
Thank you very much.
I've not come across this error before. Here is the code from the Trezor plugin for Electrum which is throwing this error: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/4aa319e5c31543883346e28a5459fa3642601be6/electrum/plugins/trezor/trezor.py#L84
As it says, it can't find the UTXO for the input you are trying to spend. How have you created this transaction you are trying to sign? Are you sure it is a valid transaction?
Secondly, make sure the Trezor is up to date, and also ensure that you have the correct wallet open on the Trezor. Did you use a passphrase when setting up the wallet and have forgotten to enter it this time?
There have been a number of problems in the past with Trezor devices and multi-sig in the past, so this might be nothing you are doing wrong but rather a problem with Trezor.
As it says, it can't find the UTXO for the input you are trying to spend. How have you created this transaction you are trying to sign? Are you sure it is a valid transaction?
Secondly, make sure the Trezor is up to date, and also ensure that you have the correct wallet open on the Trezor. Did you use a passphrase when setting up the wallet and have forgotten to enter it this time?
There have been a number of problems in the past with Trezor devices and multi-sig in the past, so this might be nothing you are doing wrong but rather a problem with Trezor.
I recently updated the firmware and installed that one exclusive for bitcoin. Maybe this is the problem. I will try to change and answer here.
The passphrase is correct. When it is not, the Electrum show an error message. And the addresses are correct, and the sign button is there. I tried to do it again many times. Same error.
I try to run Electrum with Trezor - not multisig. Create an account, received btc, and when I try to send them using the same procedure, from my watch only account in my cellphone and sign in Electrum, surprise, same error: missing previous tx.
I've not come across this error before. Here is the code from the Trezor plugin for Electrum which is throwing this error: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/4aa319e5c31543883346e28a5459fa3642601be6/electrum/plugins/trezor/trezor.py#L84
As it says, it can't find the UTXO for the input you are trying to spend. How have you created this transaction you are trying to sign? Are you sure it is a valid transaction?
Secondly, make sure the Trezor is up to date, and also ensure that you have the correct wallet open on the Trezor. Did you use a passphrase when setting up the wallet and have forgotten to enter it this time?
There have been a number of problems in the past with Trezor devices and multi-sig in the past, so this might be nothing you are doing wrong but rather a problem with Trezor.
As it says, it can't find the UTXO for the input you are trying to spend. How have you created this transaction you are trying to sign? Are you sure it is a valid transaction?
Secondly, make sure the Trezor is up to date, and also ensure that you have the correct wallet open on the Trezor. Did you use a passphrase when setting up the wallet and have forgotten to enter it this time?
There have been a number of problems in the past with Trezor devices and multi-sig in the past, so this might be nothing you are doing wrong but rather a problem with Trezor.
Thanks for the answer.
I've created the transation in the Electrum app in my smartphone. It's a watch only wallet since it has all the cosigners master keys only. So I can create the transaction and sign using my offline devices.
The transaction is valid, and it works when I sign with other cosigners other than Trezor.
Hello,
I just created an Electrum multisig in Tails (totally offline), and one of the signatures must come from a Trezor one. When I try to sign, there's a message: "missing previous tx".
Can someone help me about this error?
I was using Electrum 4.0.9 and now tried 4.3.4. Same problem. All the process was done totally offline, I don't want to go online to sign anything.
I try to sign with the Trezor first, or last, or in the middle. Same problem. All the signatures go well except the Trezor's.
The wallet created just has master keys for the other signatures, except for the Trezor's.
Thank you.
I just created an Electrum multisig in Tails (totally offline), and one of the signatures must come from a Trezor one. When I try to sign, there's a message: "missing previous tx".
Can someone help me about this error?
I was using Electrum 4.0.9 and now tried 4.3.4. Same problem. All the process was done totally offline, I don't want to go online to sign anything.
I try to sign with the Trezor first, or last, or in the middle. Same problem. All the signatures go well except the Trezor's.
The wallet created just has master keys for the other signatures, except for the Trezor's.
Thank you.
I received a DM about this thread.
bitaddress.org has never been hacked.
For many years it's been hosted on github.com
I have no indication that my github has been compromised.
I have no indication that my domain registrar account or DNSSEC has been compromised.
I have a script that monitors the checksum of bitaddress.org and received no alerts of any issue.
If the site was compromised then there would be proof in the form of a malicious version of the code. As people saw with BitcoinPaperWallet.com when it was sold to a scammer.
I've been offered $2000 for my domain but I'm not selling for any price.
It's always better to use the code from github because they'll be faster to react to a DNS seizure than I will.
My guess about OP is
1) malicious crypto browser extension
2) IT guy monitoring which PC connects to bitaddress.org and then monitor which printer that PC used and reprint whatever is in the memory of the printer.
bitaddress.org has never been hacked.
For many years it's been hosted on github.com
I have no indication that my github has been compromised.
I have no indication that my domain registrar account or DNSSEC has been compromised.
I have a script that monitors the checksum of bitaddress.org and received no alerts of any issue.
If the site was compromised then there would be proof in the form of a malicious version of the code. As people saw with BitcoinPaperWallet.com when it was sold to a scammer.
I've been offered $2000 for my domain but I'm not selling for any price.
It's always better to use the code from github because they'll be faster to react to a DNS seizure than I will.
My guess about OP is
1) malicious crypto browser extension
2) IT guy monitoring which PC connects to bitaddress.org and then monitor which printer that PC used and reprint whatever is in the memory of the printer.
Thanks for replying.
I was reading many topics here in bitcointalk and saw a topic telling that walletgenerator.net should not be used. I don't have the historic of the day I generated the wallets, but I made many of them, some in walletgenerator and others in bitaddress. The one stoled was generated in walletgenerator according to the image of it that I printed in that day. So, one more mistake made by me.
Sorry for the mistake, I forgot that I generate some wallets in walletgenerator.net. That doesn't mean that I didn't make many other mistakes in that day.
⭐ Merited by TheBeardedBaby (1)
Thank you for the answers, guys. Believe me, I keep asking myself how could I be so idiot to trust in that network.
I forgot to show the wallet:
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/addresses/btc/14AKAd16AEZZoW3dp4KEyANMJ3G5bPCrwE
It looks like someone stole from several wallets, mine was just one of that.
I will buy a hard wallet now. I suppose I was lucky, I have more BTC in the broker and was about to send them to my wallets - I generate several using the same way. Just this one had BTC, and, of course, I will never use them again.
A few more infomations: I've never said that my work's network was 100% safe or that I trust 100% in the IT guys (I'm not in the IT team). I just said that I don't think that it was the problem and, for the safe of arguments, try to find other security problems.
I forgot to show the wallet:
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/addresses/btc/14AKAd16AEZZoW3dp4KEyANMJ3G5bPCrwE
It looks like someone stole from several wallets, mine was just one of that.
I will buy a hard wallet now. I suppose I was lucky, I have more BTC in the broker and was about to send them to my wallets - I generate several using the same way. Just this one had BTC, and, of course, I will never use them again.
A few more infomations: I've never said that my work's network was 100% safe or that I trust 100% in the IT guys (I'm not in the IT team). I just said that I don't think that it was the problem and, for the safe of arguments, try to find other security problems.
Hello guys,
I will tell the story how I lost 0.4 BTC. I want to ask you advices.
It is (was) a paper wallet I generated in bitaddress.org. I generated it online, in my work. The system is protected by firewall and VPN. Then I printed it in the printer connected in the network.
The network is very safe - I will not tell the name of company for privacy. The printer is connected to the system's network.
Supposing that there's no one from inside evolved, is it possible to have a malicious intermediate between my computer and bitaddress?
Any other ideas about how that happened?
Another thing is your opinion about one method I'm thinking for generate a paper wallet in bitaddress.org. Everybody tells that the bitaddress' website is safe. Is that so?
The idea is to enter in the website and switch off the internet. The next steps will all be done without any internet:
- generate the wallets
- restore the windows, erasing everything
- take out this HD, connect to my other notebook and format it using the program Eraser, which records random information in the drive
- return the HD to the previous notebook and install Windows again
Only now, turn on the internet.
Any risk in this procedure?
Thank you.
I will tell the story how I lost 0.4 BTC. I want to ask you advices.
It is (was) a paper wallet I generated in bitaddress.org. I generated it online, in my work. The system is protected by firewall and VPN. Then I printed it in the printer connected in the network.
The network is very safe - I will not tell the name of company for privacy. The printer is connected to the system's network.
Supposing that there's no one from inside evolved, is it possible to have a malicious intermediate between my computer and bitaddress?
Any other ideas about how that happened?
Another thing is your opinion about one method I'm thinking for generate a paper wallet in bitaddress.org. Everybody tells that the bitaddress' website is safe. Is that so?
The idea is to enter in the website and switch off the internet. The next steps will all be done without any internet:
- generate the wallets
- restore the windows, erasing everything
- take out this HD, connect to my other notebook and format it using the program Eraser, which records random information in the drive
- return the HD to the previous notebook and install Windows again
Only now, turn on the internet.
Any risk in this procedure?
Thank you.