Search content
Sort by
Showing 17 of 17 results by bitstonps
Re: Bitcoin puzzle transaction ~32 BTC prize to who solves it
Just curios,
What hardware is everyone running for these puzzles? Whats the dream setup for you guys?
What hardware is everyone running for these puzzles? Whats the dream setup for you guys?
I'm only using my Rog Strix 16 CPU laptop, not the GPU because I'm trying to find the right code that would minimize resources. I'm still looking after it
Congratulations on the new KeyQuest V1.3, it's by far the fastest for CPU. I tried KeyHunt, Cyclone (all 3 versions) and yours surpasses all in speed by at least 4 MKeys/s. Nice coding. Thanks.
Also I really like your Minto.day pool, great frontend mate !
This tells it all.
The man is just good at marketing. He promotes himself with duplicate user accounts, nothing more. He’s not even half as good as the Digarans. We are the strongest in the universe. We are half-human, half-AI.
Your post alone shows just how out of touch and downright paranoid some people on this forum are, making up stories and whole lives for themselves. If you honestly think Benjade and I are the same person, you need a good psychiatris and maybe a prescription for Xanax. I could’ve quoted someone else, but of all the programs I’ve tested, only Benjade’s works flawlessly (and Retiredcoder’s for pubkeys). Keyhunt by JLP used to be an option, but it’s clearly outdated now.
So when guys start patting themselves on the back and acting like geniuses, it really pisses me off because they can’t even release a working script. Publishing code that won’t run is like selling a car without an engine: it’s worthless. Beginners see that junk, think they can crack a key with it, rent a server for nothing, and waste their money. Some folks here need to climb down from their pedestals, show a little humility, and quit treating everyone like fools.
I have noticed that you promoted mintoday .. And guess what ? you know the answer.
Btw, incredible work on the forkk I'm mining on that pool with a solid hashrate.
Promoted ?
you are funny dude.. You are Date Registered: April 15, 2025 and you are acting like you where here for decade LOL Nice trolling I have multiple accounts, just too lazy to log out and reply from a different one
Okay, well, I think we all understand, "I have multiple accounts" that says it all.
Like I said, I’ve got multiple accounts across different devices, each with random passwords generated by gg. For security, I don’t bother using the same account everywhere. Yeah, I have a few accounts, yes I have an old account on this forum and I use that account only when it is necessary, but I’m not the type to pat myself on the back by commenting or liking my own posts from another account just to boost my ego. When I say I’m lazy, I mean it I usually don’t even comment or engage much. I mostly just lurk and read different perspectives. bbut here, you went after nomachine1. It doesn’t seem like you’re trying to have a real conversation; it feels more like you’re just trying to kill the vibe. If you don’t like something, why not just move on?! Why all the negativity !?
Sure, the code might look like junk to you, but someone else could find it useful. We all know cracking this puzzle takes serious GPU power. Without the hardware, most scripts are pretty much useless. But bring the GPUs, and things change fast the script practically writes itself. People here are just tossing around ideas. It’s not always about solving the puzzle outright sometimes it’s about sparking thoughts that could lead to something bigger down the road.
Puzzle 71 has, what, 1.18 sextillion possibilities? Good luck getting a supercomputer to crack that anytime soon. Still ffolks are sharing ideas, trying new approaches,, and experimenting with stuff that might pay off later. No need to tear anyone down we’re all just human, you know.
I have been on this forum for a long time, always helped on another branch, but I was asked to create my own branch to speed up transactions. I'm almost always online and always help with acceleration if it's in my power.
I will leave my btc address below for tips if ever you guys want.
BTC 1Hof999zuqUKpifmzrSABv7tNr4nRaoJKM
ETH 0xd370c880fd74cabfe19005bfb172d4c32e8cd858
LTC Lf2L6DTBr2gXT38d7cVRqDQiHMndtXQyNW
TRX TUZTgX2fqxD6CS9G5hbQYJNxsRLMjh8scV
USDT TUZTgX2fqxD6CS9G5hbQYJNxsRLMjh8scV (trc20)
USDT 0xd370c880fd74cabfe19005bfb172d4c32e8cd858 (erc20)
paypal.me/spider703
free bitcoin accelerator
Just leave your TXID below and I'll speed up the transaction. I do not guarantee that this will be confirmed at the exact moment when I accelerate it.
you are maybe write me in telegramm @spider703 for quick contact with me. My GMT +12, please consider the time difference
to speed up your transaction, I use the hash of your transaction and send it to the network
P.S. My old account was unlocked https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1105709
Now I work on him
If you need you can write me in telegram https://t.me/Spider703
I will leave my btc address below for tips if ever you guys want.
BTC 1Hof999zuqUKpifmzrSABv7tNr4nRaoJKM
ETH 0xd370c880fd74cabfe19005bfb172d4c32e8cd858
LTC Lf2L6DTBr2gXT38d7cVRqDQiHMndtXQyNW
TRX TUZTgX2fqxD6CS9G5hbQYJNxsRLMjh8scV
USDT TUZTgX2fqxD6CS9G5hbQYJNxsRLMjh8scV (trc20)
USDT 0xd370c880fd74cabfe19005bfb172d4c32e8cd858 (erc20)
paypal.me/spider703
free bitcoin accelerator
Just leave your TXID below and I'll speed up the transaction. I do not guarantee that this will be confirmed at the exact moment when I accelerate it.
you are maybe write me in telegramm @spider703 for quick contact with me. My GMT +12, please consider the time difference
to speed up your transaction, I use the hash of your transaction and send it to the network
P.S. My old account was unlocked https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1105709
Now I work on him
If you need you can write me in telegram https://t.me/Spider703
Thank you for accelerating this hash please :
20f1cd13fa7a33a9eccd2d3f78c8d5cc3b021f3dd7c2ef192d98d05b400ee533
Here are two possibilities.
1. The mining pool that included the replacement transaction didn't have the first transaction in its mempool and accepted the second transaction when they received it.
2. The mining pool that included the replacement transaction has enabled full RBF.
Any node that has enabled full RBF treat any transaction as RBF-enabled and accept the replacement transaction even if the original transaction has not been flagged as RBF.
And it may worth mentioning that RBF isn't a consensus rule. RBF is a policy and miners are free to include any valid transaction they want.
A miner can include a transaction paying zero fee even if there's an unconfirmed non-RBF transaction broadcasted earlier with a very high fee spending the same coin.
1. The mining pool that included the replacement transaction didn't have the first transaction in its mempool and accepted the second transaction when they received it.
2. The mining pool that included the replacement transaction has enabled full RBF.
Any node that has enabled full RBF treat any transaction as RBF-enabled and accept the replacement transaction even if the original transaction has not been flagged as RBF.
And it may worth mentioning that RBF isn't a consensus rule. RBF is a policy and miners are free to include any valid transaction they want.
A miner can include a transaction paying zero fee even if there's an unconfirmed non-RBF transaction broadcasted earlier with a very high fee spending the same coin.
Your explanations are consistently legendary. Thank you very much for your response.
Hi,
I have a question and hope someone has a clear explanation.
A few days ago, I noticed a transaction on the network that doesn't support the RBF. Today, by coincidence, the same page was opened on my phone, and I can see that the same hash was replaced. How did this happen? The user used RBF while the transaction on the mempool and blockchain indicated RBF: NO. (The transaction has the same input.) Here is a screenshot for the hash: (https://prnt.sc/Nzgznfu6C_aW)
And here is the hash as well. (9e8159d690b3390c78b8d5a759d2395ce22f7ae33a3425bfed82ce20238232ba)
Is there any expert available to provide an explanation?
Thank you in advance for your time reading this and for your time to respond.
Regards,
I have a question and hope someone has a clear explanation.
A few days ago, I noticed a transaction on the network that doesn't support the RBF. Today, by coincidence, the same page was opened on my phone, and I can see that the same hash was replaced. How did this happen? The user used RBF while the transaction on the mempool and blockchain indicated RBF: NO. (The transaction has the same input.) Here is a screenshot for the hash: (https://prnt.sc/Nzgznfu6C_aW)
And here is the hash as well. (9e8159d690b3390c78b8d5a759d2395ce22f7ae33a3425bfed82ce20238232ba)
Is there any expert available to provide an explanation?
Thank you in advance for your time reading this and for your time to respond.
Regards,
Hi,
My friend is facing a problem with a transaction where the payment was sent from numerous unconfirmed inputs. When attempting to use CPFP, we encountered an error during the broadcasting step.
I attempted manual broadcasting, but received the following error message from mmpool:
'too-long-mempool-chain, too many unconfirmed ancestors [limit: 25]'
(Here's a screenshot of the message: (https://prnt.sc/Cqk0-hmFPIOp) )
The transaction is successful only on blockcypher. - Broadcasting manually
Hex:
Any solution please ? Thank you for your responses.
Regards,
My friend is facing a problem with a transaction where the payment was sent from numerous unconfirmed inputs. When attempting to use CPFP, we encountered an error during the broadcasting step.
I attempted manual broadcasting, but received the following error message from mmpool:
'too-long-mempool-chain, too many unconfirmed ancestors [limit: 25]'
(Here's a screenshot of the message: (https://prnt.sc/Cqk0-hmFPIOp) )
The transaction is successful only on blockcypher. - Broadcasting manually
Hex:
Quote
02000000000101ed68fd70c7edd0a8b16dde386a715158bd541c710f058ea957f9b466e1ef3b0c0 200000000fdffffff01eb62490000000000160014e38589ff4052139632b8dce33000776574304e 84024730440220166da38def7293eee85f1300c96613186325496baf68f8efcfff1ba962cf168b0 2201ac85a066581c0e4b468f264f0864f6b4809c923509df42ff4d7078f71043446012103206787 73057f7b48212dbac5621299e181bf0c7a5cace44898ec88d2c59c4ce6f68e0c00
Any solution please ? Thank you for your responses.
Regards,
I just want to thank you for the last message, You are a real legend , thank you so much Merit ++
You are welcome.I just checked your address and I see you have made two other transactions and the effective fee rate is now 42.1 sat/vbyte.
Unfortunately, the network has become more congested in the past hours and your transactions are still unconfirmed.
If you are a bit lucky, your transactions will be confirmed in the next few hours.
Yes, a bad luck.
I can't thank you enough.
We need that funds for urgent project and yes we want to sped another 480$ on fee.
As I said in my previous post, even if you bump the fee of your CPFP transaction to 20,000 sat/vbyte and spend another $480 worth of bitcoin, you would increase the effective fee rate to 35.5 sat/vbyte and that's still insufficient for getting fast confirmation.Of course, that will surely help you get confirmation faster.
We have Confirmed coins inside the wallet and we have a doubt that this may Affect other coins, and block the entire wallet.
That wouldn't change anything. For doing CPFP you should spend the fund received in the unconfirmed transaction.
We have already performed the CPFP inside electrum and it doesn't give us the option to create another child transaction only to increase fee which seems impossible to do it above 10k sats
There is no CPFP option in right-click menu for a transaction that has been made for doing CPFP itself and that's why I suggested making another CPFP transaction manually. In your CPFP transaction, you sent the unconfirmed output from bc1q4stj....... to bc1qkxy......
Now you should spend the same fund from bc1qkxy..... to another address with high fee.
To make the CPFP transaction manually:
- Copy a bitcoin address to your clipboard.
Take note that this address will receive the unconfirmed coins. So it should be your own address. - Go to "Coins" tab.
If you don't see "Coins" tab, click on "View" at top of the window and check "Coins". - Find the coin you received in the CPFP transaction, right click on it, select "Fully spend" and then "send to address in clipboard".
Note that the coin you should select is worth 0.558xxxxx BTC. - Enter the desired fee rate and make the transaction.
As I already said, if you make the transaction with the fee rate of 10,000 sat/vbyte, it would have the same effect as bumping the fee rate of your CPFP transaction to 20,000 sat/vbyte.
In this way, you will increase the effective fee rate of your transaction to 35.5 sat/vbyte and if you want to increase it more, you should make the third CPFP transaction.
At the time I am writing this post, around 40 sat/vbyte is required for getting fast confirmation.
I want to send you a message and I got this message : You have exceeded the limit of 2 personal messages per day
I just want to thank you for the last message, You are a real legend , thank you so much Merit ++
We need that funds for urgent project and yes we want to sped another 480$ on fee.
As I said in my previous post, even if you bump the fee of your CPFP transaction to 20,000 sat/vbyte and spend another $480 worth of bitcoin, you would increase the effective fee rate to 35.5 sat/vbyte and that's still insufficient for getting fast confirmation.Of course, that will surely help you get confirmation faster.
We have Confirmed coins inside the wallet and we have a doubt that this may Affect other coins, and block the entire wallet.
That wouldn't change anything. For doing CPFP you should spend the fund received in the unconfirmed transaction.
We have already performed the CPFP inside electrum and it doesn't give us the option to create another child transaction only to increase fee which seems impossible to do it above 10k sats
There is no CPFP option in right-click menu for a transaction that has been made for doing CPFP itself and that's why I suggested making another CPFP transaction manually. In your CPFP transaction, you sent the unconfirmed output from bc1q4stj....... to bc1qkxy......
Now you should spend the same fund from bc1qkxy..... to another address with high fee.
To make the CPFP transaction manaully:
- Copy a bitcoin address to your clipboard.
Take note that this address will receive the unconfirmed coins. So it should be your own address. - Go to "Coins" tab.
If you don't see "Coins" tab, click on "View" at top of the window and check "Coins". - Find the coin you received in the CPFP transaction, right click on it, select "Fully spend" and then "send to address in clipboard".
Note that the coin you should select is worth 0.558xxxxx BTC. - Enter the desired fee rate and make the transaction.
As I already said, if you make the transaction with the fee rate of 10,000 sat/vbyte, it would have the same effect as bumping the fee rate of your CPFP transaction to 20,000 sat/vbyte.
In this way, you will increase the effective fee rate of your transaction to 35.5 sat/vbyte and you want to increase it more, you should make the third CPFP transaction.
At the time I am writing this post, around 40 sat/vbyte is required for getting fast confirmation.
Thank you so much for the instructions, I really appreciate your response, I apologize for the first comment.
So, you made a CPFP transaction with the fee rate of 10,046 sat/vbyte and the total fee of 0.011 BTC.
Now, you want to bump the fee rate of this transaction to 20,000 sat/vbyte.
Since you say you tried different electrum servers and none of them allowed you to broadcast the replacement transaction, one solution is to export the raw transaction, broadcast it using other tools and see if they allow you to do so.
Here are some broadcasting tools.
The other solution is that you make a new CPFP transaction instead of bumping the fee of the previous one. Note that in this way, you will add another unconfirmed transaction to your wallet.
To do so, you need to make the new CPFP transaction manually with spending the fund from bc1qkxy......... to one of your own addresses.
If you make this transaction with the fee rate of 10,000 sat/vbyte, it would have the same effect as bumping the fee rate of your CPFP transaction to 20,000 sat/vbyte and it would increase the effective fee rate of your transaction to 35.5 sat/vbyte which is still insufficient for getting fast confirmation.
Take note that you have already spent $480 worth of bitcoin for doing CPFP and you will spend another $480 worth of bitcoin for making another CPFP transaction or increasing the fee rate of your current CPFP transaction.
Also note that you may need to use coin control, if you have other funds in your wallet and you want to make a new CPFP transaction manually.
Now, you want to bump the fee rate of this transaction to 20,000 sat/vbyte.
Since you say you tried different electrum servers and none of them allowed you to broadcast the replacement transaction, one solution is to export the raw transaction, broadcast it using other tools and see if they allow you to do so.
Here are some broadcasting tools.
The other solution is that you make a new CPFP transaction instead of bumping the fee of the previous one. Note that in this way, you will add another unconfirmed transaction to your wallet.
To do so, you need to make the new CPFP transaction manually with spending the fund from bc1qkxy......... to one of your own addresses.
If you make this transaction with the fee rate of 10,000 sat/vbyte, it would have the same effect as bumping the fee rate of your CPFP transaction to 20,000 sat/vbyte and it would increase the effective fee rate of your transaction to 35.5 sat/vbyte which is still insufficient for getting fast confirmation.
Take note that you have already spent $480 worth of bitcoin for doing CPFP and you will spend another $480 worth of bitcoin for making another CPFP transaction or increasing the fee rate of your current CPFP transaction.
Also note that you may need to use coin control, if you have other funds in your wallet and you want to make a new CPFP transaction manually.
Hi,
I appreciate the time you took to write this.
We need that funds for urgent project and yes we want to sped another 480$ on fee.
We have already performed the CPFP inside electrum and it doesn't give us the option to create another child transaction only to increase fee which seems impossible to do it above 10k sats
We have Confirmed coins inside the wallet and we have a doubt that this may Affect other coins, and block the entire wallet.
We have tried to to use the Hex after signing the transaction and all these websites return the message code 25 Maxtxfee.
Thank you again for the response.
When trying to increase the fee in the new hash (setting it to 20,000 sats for 110 vBytes), I encountered an error upon signing and broadcasting
hosseinimr93 is correct. 20,000 sats for 110 vbytes is 181 sats/vbyte. Both of these values are far below the DEFAULT_TRANSACTION_MAXFEE and HIGH_TX_FEE_PER_KB settings in Bitcoin Core (which are 0.1 BTC or 1,000 sats/vbyte, respectively).If you are getting the same error on multiple servers, then the problem is with your transaction. I also suspect you have maybe set the fee to 20,000 sats/vbyte rather than 20,000 sats overall (which as LoyceV has pointed out, will achieve nothing anyway).
Thank you all for the answers,
This is a screenshot so you can have a clear vision about the situation : (https://prnt.sc/d6kR-NANxQM1)
The wallet used is Electrum.
Regards
The server doesn't allow you to broadcast the transaction because the fee is too high.
I think you wanted to pay 20,000 sat as transaction fee, but you mistakenly set the fee rate to 20,000 sat/vbyte. If that's the case, you were lucky that the server didn't broadcast your transaction.
I think you wanted to pay 20,000 sat as transaction fee, but you mistakenly set the fee rate to 20,000 sat/vbyte. If that's the case, you were lucky that the server didn't broadcast your transaction.
I'm Lucky that the server didn't proceed ?! Who said this, I have already set 10k sat. and I want to increase it to 20k sats.
Please read the post again before jumping,
Thanks.
Hello
I've been struggling with an issue all day and need some assistance.
I transferred funds from Coinbase to my account, but noticed Coinbase uses several unconfirmed hashes (Parent) for the transaction. Receiving this through Electrum, I attempted a CPFP (Child Pays for Parent) but the transaction fee was too low for its large size, about 85 KvB.
When trying to increase the fee in the new hash (setting it to 20,000 sats for 110 vBytes), I encountered an error upon signing and broadcasting: 'The server returned an error when broadcasting the transaction. Consider trying another server or update Electrum. Fees exceed maximum configured by user.'
I was able to set 10,000 sat
Even attempting to sign the transaction and broadcast it manually on different servers resulted in the same error: 'Code: -25 Error: Fees exceed maximum configured by user' (referring to settings like -Maxtxfee, Maxfeerate).
Can anyone provide a solution to this? Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
I've been struggling with an issue all day and need some assistance.
I transferred funds from Coinbase to my account, but noticed Coinbase uses several unconfirmed hashes (Parent) for the transaction. Receiving this through Electrum, I attempted a CPFP (Child Pays for Parent) but the transaction fee was too low for its large size, about 85 KvB.
When trying to increase the fee in the new hash (setting it to 20,000 sats for 110 vBytes), I encountered an error upon signing and broadcasting: 'The server returned an error when broadcasting the transaction. Consider trying another server or update Electrum. Fees exceed maximum configured by user.'
I was able to set 10,000 sat
Even attempting to sign the transaction and broadcast it manually on different servers resulted in the same error: 'Code: -25 Error: Fees exceed maximum configured by user' (referring to settings like -Maxtxfee, Maxfeerate).
Can anyone provide a solution to this? Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Re: Bitcoin wallet (Beta) - importing wallet Serious problem.
I was able to get the correct seed ( 12 words) and I have tested using ian tool for BIP39 and it works and it shows the correct addresses for Legacy but not for the segwit (bc1q)
Have you checked the derivation path on the Iancoleman tool under "BIP32 Derivation Path" that's the correct derivation path that you need to use when importing the BIP39 seed into Electrum to get the correct legacy wallet.
Also, in derived addresses on the left side, it should show the path of your BTC address and what derivation path your BTC address belongs. Look at the image below as a reference
https://i.ibb.co/LnW07ZP/Screenshot-20230624-072952-Chrome.jpg
Or alternatively, export the private key since you said you get the correct wallet using iancoleman then export the private key from that tool and import it to Electrum. Make sure that you use this tool on an offline PC or else it's not safe anymore to reuse that wallet.
Hi there,
I appreciate your response. Just to clarify, the legacy addresses in the Bitcoin wallet app are functioning correctly. I have verified this by cross-checking them with the results from the tool, and they match perfectly.
However, the issue arises with the segwit addresses (starting with "bc1q"). Unfortunately, these segwit addresses do not align between the Bitcoin wallet app and the tool. This becomes significant as the funds are currently held in these segwit addresses.
If there are any further insights or suggestions you can provide to help resolve this matter, I would greatly appreciate it.
Re: Bitcoin wallet (Beta) - importing wallet Serious problem.
I was able to get the correct seed ( 12 words) and I have tested using ian tool for BIP39 and it works and it shows the correct addresses for Legacy but not for the segwit (bc1q)
Try and check for more than 20 addresses on iancoleman to know if you will find the address that you are looking for. You mean the wallet is not following the P2WPKH derivation path. Maybe, or maybe not. I do not know how to extract the seed phrase. I would have tested it and see if you are correct. Wait for others to comment. Hopefully other people can test that out. But I wonder the type of issue you or your friend has but not able to use the file backup directly.The issue that we have is that we want to import that wallet on ele.. and pump the fee for a transaction.
Re: Bitcoin wallet (Beta) - importing wallet Serious problem.
J have tested this wallet before. Indio not like the wallet because it does not support seed phrase backup. The best you can do is to use the backup of the wallet to recover your coins. I mean the file backup.
You can wait for other people to respond, maybe they can give you a guide to how to recover the wallet using seed phrase.
You can wait for other people to respond, maybe they can give you a guide to how to recover the wallet using seed phrase.
I was able to get the correct seed ( 12 words) and I have tested using ian tool for BIP39 and it works and it shows the correct addresses for Legacy but not for the segwit (bc1q)
Re: Bitcoin wallet (Beta) - importing wallet Serious problem.
Not all wallets are using the standard BIP39 derivation paths. Such wallets should be avoided.
I checked Playstore and looked for Bitcoin wallet (beta) but I did not see it. If you are on the install page of the wallet on Playstore, you will see three dots at the upper right corner, click on it, you will see the share link. Post the share link on this thread.
I checked Playstore and looked for Bitcoin wallet (beta) but I did not see it. If you are on the install page of the wallet on Playstore, you will see three dots at the upper right corner, click on it, you will see the share link. Post the share link on this thread.
Here is the link for the wallet from bitcoin org
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.schildbach.wallet
Hey Bitcointalk members.,
I'm facing a problem with the Bitcoin Wallet (beta) on my Android device, which I downloaded from the Play Store. However, I'm here seeking help from the community, as I'm trying to assist a friend who's experiencing this issue.
We want to export the private key from the Bitcoin Wallet. We've managed to export the backup file and extract the seed phrase successfully.(openssl) The trouble arises when we attempt to import the seed phrase into Electrum and detect an existing account. Unfortunately, every time we try, we're met with the frustrating message "No account exists!". We have changed the path and all the parameters.
Now, here's where it gets interesting. The Bitcoin addresses within the wallet are segwit addresses, "bc1q". All transactions are visible on these addresses without any problems -(Mobile). In an effort to resolve the issue, we've useed the Coleman BIP39 tool, using the m/84 path (bip84). Surprisingly, the tool generates different addresses that have never been used.
To investigate further, we compared the legacy addresses (starting with "1") within the wallet app to the bip32 addresses on the tool, and they match perfectly. (which means that there is no problem with the seed and it is correct) However, when it comes to the segwit addresses, the correct ones don't show up. We've scoured the web for specific paths to try, but none of our attempts have been successful. Even when importing the wallet backup file onto another device, we encounter the same data as on the initial device.
The only information we can gather from the app is the extended public key, which starts with "z".
I'm reaching out to this community in the hopes of finding a solution to this problem and retrieving the correct used addresses. Any help or guidance would be immensely appreciated.
Thank you all in advance for your support.
Best regards,
I'm facing a problem with the Bitcoin Wallet (beta) on my Android device, which I downloaded from the Play Store. However, I'm here seeking help from the community, as I'm trying to assist a friend who's experiencing this issue.
We want to export the private key from the Bitcoin Wallet. We've managed to export the backup file and extract the seed phrase successfully.(openssl) The trouble arises when we attempt to import the seed phrase into Electrum and detect an existing account. Unfortunately, every time we try, we're met with the frustrating message "No account exists!". We have changed the path and all the parameters.
Now, here's where it gets interesting. The Bitcoin addresses within the wallet are segwit addresses, "bc1q". All transactions are visible on these addresses without any problems -(Mobile). In an effort to resolve the issue, we've useed the Coleman BIP39 tool, using the m/84 path (bip84). Surprisingly, the tool generates different addresses that have never been used.
To investigate further, we compared the legacy addresses (starting with "1") within the wallet app to the bip32 addresses on the tool, and they match perfectly. (which means that there is no problem with the seed and it is correct) However, when it comes to the segwit addresses, the correct ones don't show up. We've scoured the web for specific paths to try, but none of our attempts have been successful. Even when importing the wallet backup file onto another device, we encounter the same data as on the initial device.
The only information we can gather from the app is the extended public key, which starts with "z".
I'm reaching out to this community in the hopes of finding a solution to this problem and retrieving the correct used addresses. Any help or guidance would be immensely appreciated.
Thank you all in advance for your support.
Best regards,