Back in 2014 a stranger gifted me a paper for the Secret Santa. It has a picture of a 10$ bill on a background of a render of bitcoin "bills" and "coins". In that paper there are:
Bitcoin Address: a 34 character alphanumeric string
Encrypted Private Key (Password required): a 59 58 character alphanumeric string
At the time I put some effort into it, but couldn't figure out how to redeem it, and since I didn't know the sender I couldn't ask him, so I let it be. With the recent bitcoin craze I decided it was worth giving it another shot to see if I can use whatever funds there are as an excuse to learn how all this works. I've read quite a bit, watched a few youtube videos, installed bitcoincore and my computer maintains a core now. I also created a wallet with Armory. Still, I haven't been able to access the address. When I try to sweep it in Armory by inputting the private key I get the following error: There was an error processing the private key data. Please check that you entered it correctly. I'm guessing either the account doesn't actually exist or (most probably) the codes I have are shorthand, compressed, or something of the like that I just don't get. If you are willing to help, I'll greatly appreciate it. I believe I have given all the information that I have, with the obvious exception of the keys. Ask me if there's any other necessary detail I may have missed to report though!
This is a x-post from /BitcoinBeginners with consolidated details from the comments there. A couple of people very kindly tried to help, but it seems we've reached the boundaries of our knowledge. Back in 2014 a stranger gifted me a paper for the Secret Santa. It has a picture of a 10$ bill on a background of a render of bitcoin "bills" and "coins". In that paper there are:
Bitcoin Address: a 34 character alphanumeric mixed-case string
Encrypted Private Key (Password required): a 58 character alphanumeric mixed-case string
At the time I put some effort into it, but couldn't figure out how to redeem it, and since I didn't know the sender I couldn't ask him, so I let it be. With the recent bitcoin craze I decided it was worth giving it another shot to see how much that actually is and if I can use whatever funds there are as an excuse to learn how all this works. I've read quite a bit, watched a few youtube videos, installed bitcoincore and my computer maintains a core now. I also created a wallet with Armory. Still, I haven't been able to access the address. When I try to sweep it in Armory by inputting the private key I get the following error: There was an error processing the private key data. Please check that you entered it correctly. When I try to import the private key into a Bitcoin Core wallet, it returns the following error: Invalid private key encoding (code -5) I'm guessing either no transfer was ever made to address (but should it return an error then or just empty?) or -most probably- the codes I have are shorthand, compressed, or something of the like that I just don't get. If you are willing to help, I'll greatly appreciate it. I believe I have given all the information that I have, with the obvious exception of the keys. Ask me if there's any other necessary detail I may have missed to report though!
I have been having a lot of trouble over the past few days with something I thought would be simple—sending 0.1 as a test to a paper wallet and ensuring I could sweep these funds back into my wallet before sending some bitcoin to a fresh paper wallet for cold storage. I had numerous problems sending the funds, but a transaction finally went through for 0.1 yesterday. Now, with 75 confirmations, neither Armory or Electrum can find any funds for this address when attempting to sweep. Here is the address: 1HswqbS6swTMarPh6QwQme9QmBA12cwoMp I have tried 4 or 5 times with Armory and a couple with Electrum. I had previously tried to sweep the funds into Armory from this address before the transaction was confirmed. Could this cause the problem? How can I get my funds back? TLDR: Cannot sweep funds with Electrum or Armory that I know are there. Edit: Just now, I tried entering the compressed private key (starting with an L) instead of the entering the uncompressed key (starting with a 5) and my funds showed up. I thought private and private compressed were essentially the same, and these are the keys bitaddress is showing when I decrypt my BIP-38 key.
When are we going to get a pluggable policy architecture for Core?
Evidently there is a fundamental distinction between features which are:
"consensus": eg, block size (because it gets written to the block chain)
"policy": eg, RBF (because it "only" affects the queuing / relaying of transactions in the mempool, before they are written to the block chain)
This seems to suggest that things which are "policy"-level are optional, since they do not require "consensus". Are there other policy-level features for Bitcoin which could be implemented as plugins? One example might be HD - Hierarchical Deterministic wallets. There is BIP 32 for HD, plus Armory has a different implementation of HD. HD the magic that supports cold storage, and which also allows you to backup a wallet only once - since the "root" key contains the "seed" to generate all possible future private keys for that wallet. Since generating private keys doesn't affect how blocks are appended to the block chain, HD is apparently "policy" level, not "consensus" level, and thus could presumably also be implemented as a plug-in. It seems strange that 6 years later, HD isn't available in Core yet - not as a plugin, and not as a monolithic merge either. There are other important upgrades to Bitcoin which might also be implementable as Core plugins: for instance:
IBLT (Inverse Bloom Lookup Tables) and Thin Blocks - both of which are techniques for "compressing" the amount of data to be propagated on the network, and thus possible scaling techniques.
BIP 38 - passphrase protected private keys
probably many other BIPs out there
My overall questions are: (1) What are the priorities of the "Core" developers (whether hired by Blockstream or not)? (2) Is there any interest in providing modularization / a policy plugin architecture for Core? (3) How easy / hard is it to modularize C/C++ code? Are there any Core devs who are good at modularizing C/C++ code? If not, could some be found and given commit rights? (4) If a controversial "monolithic upgrade to Core" such as RBF were packaged as an optional "policy plugin", would this allow for a more smooth and less controversial adoption by the Bitcoin community? (5) How many weeks would it take an expert cryptographer like Adam Back to implement HD as a policy plugin? (6) Who decides what guys like Adam Back work on nowadays, and what is the decision-making process and incentives? (7) If Blockstream isn't heading in the direction of providing a pluggable policy architecture for Core, what does this say about their goals and strategies? (8) How many existing BIPs out there could be implemented as policy plugins, to allow the community to decide which ones they want to use? (9) How typical is it for an open-source project of this magnitude to lack a plugin architecture 6 years into its life cycle? (10) What is the track record for success for open-source software projects that evolve a plugin architecture, versus ones which don't?
BIP for deterministic pay-to-script-hash multi-signature addresses | Thomas Kerin | Feb 12 2015
Thomas Kerin on Feb 12 2015: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi all, I have drafted a BIP with Jean Pierre and Ruben after the last discussion, related to a standard for deriving a canonical pay-to-script-hash address given a set of public keys and the number of signatures required. There have been two or three discussions about it on the mailing list to date, and various services already carry out this process. I hope a BIP to describe this process will allow services to declare themselves as BIPXX compliant, working towards interoperability of services and simplifying the derivation of scripts and their addresses by all parties. BIP: XX Title: Deterministic Pay-to-script-hash multi-signature addresses through public key sorting Author: Thomas Kerin, Jean-Pierre Rupp, Ruben de Vries Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Created: 8 February 2015 ==Abstract== This BIP describes a method to deterministically generate multi-signature transaction scripts. It focuses on defining how the public keys must be encoded and sorted so that the redeem script and corresponding P2SH address are always the same for a given set of keys and number of required signatures. ==Motivation== Most multi-signature transactions are addressed to P2SH (pay-to-script-hash) addresses, as defined in BIP-0016. Multi-signature redeem scripts do not require a particular ordering or encoding for public keys. This means that for a given set of keys and number of required signatures, there are as many as 2(n!) possible standard redeem scripts, each with its separate P2SH address. Adhering to a an ordering scheme and key encoding would ensure that a multi-signature “account” (set of public keys and required signature count) has a canonical P2SH address. By adopting a sorting and encoding standard, compliant wallets will always produce the same P2SH address for the same given set of keys and required signature count, making it easier to recognize transactions involving that multi-signature account. This is particularly attractive for multisignature hierarchical-deterministic wallets, as less state is required to setup multi-signature accounts: only the number of required signatures and master public keys of participants need to be shared, and all wallets will generate the same addresses. While most web wallets do not presently facilitate the setup of multisignature accounts with users of a different service, conventions which ensure cross-compatibility should make it easier to achieve this. Many wallet as a service providers use a 2of3 multi-signature schema where the user stores 1 of the keys (offline) as backup while using the other key for daily use and letting the service cosign his transactions. This standard will help in enabling a party other than the service provider to recover the wallet without any help from the service provider. ==Implementation== For a set of public keys, ensure that they have been received in compressed form, sort them lexicographically according to their binary representation before using the resulting list of keys in a standard multisig redeem script. Hash the redeem script according to BIP-0016 to get the P2SH address. ==Compatibility==
Uncompressed keys are incompatible with this specificiation. A
compatible implementation should not automatically compress keys. Receiving an uncompressed key from a multisig participant should be interpreted as a sign that the user has an incompatible implementation.
P2SH addressses do not reveal information about the script that is
receiving the funds. For this reason it is not technically possible to enforce this BIP as a rule on the network. Also, it would cause a hard fork.
Implementations that do not conform with this BIP will have
compatibility issues with strictly-compliant wallets.
Implementations which do adopt this standard will be cross-compatible
when choosing multisig addressses.
If a group of users were not entirely compliant, there is the
possibility that a participant will derive an address that the others will not recognize as part of the common multisig account. ==Test vectors== The required number of signatures in each case is 2. Vector 1
For now, the BIP will live here: https://github.com/afk11/bips/blob/bip0090/bip-0090.mediawiki/ Looking forward to any feedback and discussions that arise! Thomas Kerin My PGP key can be found here <http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3F0D2F83A2966155> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJU3R43XxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ2MzI1MzM4QjJGOTU5OEUzREMzQzc0MzAz RjBEMkY4M0EyOTY2MTU1AAoJED8NL4OilmFVKwUP/3MS++5D+YJAPZG/a7PhY3hf 8UvBkaAp7YqCVvZkHhpQ3+7AF+c6nAfu9JRFSdGP5hNvApagbZoC2oeLQ5rHBfXC MbkbqOSp0z7C4MvEqmncTSgqNykxanVfiypV2S7hU2fbiylVi2jIaGrjqQt32jT7 kdFw5wqAS3zVHJVZhnUufLj/VYC94vdfrgpL22WI9oNH/nOvO6uG3YwZ9rc63ZH/ cwTmUnjOqDUlJWtYsfcoDL41RkmeBtGqD+6gTe3BtVHJQqlsEWpB1hsucOv5XdEk V0teRUQ8+hFnU86+S4VJ8+qy/QjYflHnfy7vcA3M6LhAkle3scCs7ZCpDb9EGFM+ yAZivS4vrcVaYgY+oBdSnMEyvudwDKHwdy/rNjTskCLsHzcZX5jAoIxT2XskAXMD UcWRelpN7Wth5jnSXeB89Wg1DqBwyl0LF7ZXepglopfHbAIsZ1oms252f5G7cfFq +11HR3JswvVN4otqNAZzYaN7wEBEZwlcD+a/VKoNE0uPVuBS08phhNGjHmidXCOZ wC11biStwjt1tv1lUNcK0HkkNReuUrUDK1dNKxGGfUHk+Qcka+cQ1ap47lLx06+U LskPwJKR1tvoHkVMLy4UutX8bIRtXE3WbSOQlV9Q/4/os3tTpVlH5AX47W+2CikV t3pTmdJy0FubCrHSJ63C =5H5A -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/d4a3d521/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0xA2966155.asc Type: application/pgp-keys Size: 5712 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/d4a3d521/attachment.bin> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0xA2966155.asc.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 639 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150212/d4a3d521/attachment.sig> original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-February/007454.html
BIP for deterministic multisig addresses | Thomas Kerin | Feb 12 2015
Thomas Kerin on Feb 12 2015: Not sure what happened there - I'll drop the PGP. Hi all, I have drafted a BIP with Jean Pierre and Ruben after the last discussion, related to a standard for deriving a canonical pay-to-script-hash address given a set of public keys and the number of signatures required. There have been two or three discussions about it on the mailing list to date, and various services already carry out this process. I hope a BIP to describe this process will allow services to declare themselves as BIPXX compliant, working towards interoperability of services and simplifying the derivation of scripts and their addresses by all parties. BIP: XX Title: Deterministic Pay-to-script-hash multi-signature addresses through public key sorting Author: Thomas Kerin, Jean-Pierre Rupp, Ruben de Vries Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Created: 8 February 2015 ==Abstract== This BIP describes a method to deterministically generate multi-signature transaction scripts. It focuses on defining how the public keys must be encoded and sorted so that the redeem script and corresponding P2SH address are always the same for a given set of keys and number of required signatures. ==Motivation== Most multi-signature transactions are addressed to P2SH (pay-to-script-hash) addresses, as defined in BIP-0016. Multi-signature redeem scripts do not require a particular ordering or encoding for public keys. This means that for a given set of keys and number of required signatures, there are as many as 2(n!) possible standard redeem scripts, each with its separate P2SH address. Adhering to a an ordering scheme and key encoding would ensure that a multi-signature “account” (set of public keys and required signature count) has a canonical P2SH address. By adopting a sorting and encoding standard, compliant wallets will always produce the same P2SH address for the same given set of keys and required signature count, making it easier to recognize transactions involving that multi-signature account. This is particularly attractive for multisignature hierarchical-deterministic wallets, as less state is required to setup multi-signature accounts: only the number of required signatures and master public keys of participants need to be shared, and all wallets will generate the same addresses. While most web wallets do not presently facilitate the setup of multisignature accounts with users of a different service, conventions which ensure cross-compatibility should make it easier to achieve this. Many wallet as a service providers use a 2of3 multi-signature schema where the user stores 1 of the keys (offline) as backup while using the other key for daily use and letting the service cosign his transactions. This standard will help in enabling a party other than the service provider to recover the wallet without any help from the service provider. ==Implementation== For a set of public keys, ensure that they have been received in compressed form, sort them lexicographically according to their binary representation before using the resulting list of keys in a standard multisig redeem script. Hash the redeem script according to BIP-0016 to get the P2SH address. ==Compatibility==
Uncompressed keys are incompatible with this specificiation. A
compatible implementation should not automatically compress keys. Receiving an uncompressed key from a multisig participant should be interpreted as a sign that the user has an incompatible implementation.
P2SH addressses do not reveal information about the script that is
receiving the funds. For this reason it is not technically possible to enforce this BIP as a rule on the network. Also, it would cause a hard fork.
Implementations that do not conform with this BIP will have
compatibility issues with strictly-compliant wallets.
Implementations which do adopt this standard will be cross-compatible
when choosing multisig addressses.
If a group of users were not entirely compliant, there is the
possibility that a participant will derive an address that the others will not recognize as part of the common multisig account. ==Test vectors== The required number of signatures in each case is 2. Vector 1
Edit: Just now, I tried entering the compressed private key (starting with an L) instead of the entering the uncompressed key (starting with a 5) and my funds showed up. I thought private and private compressed were essentially the same, and these are the keys bitaddress is showing when I decrypt my BIP-38 key. Wallet import format is the most common way to represent private keys in Bitcoin. For private keys associated with uncompressed public keys, they are 51 characters and always start with the number 5 on mainnet (9 on testnet). Private keys associated with compressed public keys are 52 characters and start with a capital L or K on mainnet (c on ... Mini private keys must be generated in a "brute force" fashion, keeping only keys that conform to the format's rules. If a key is well-formed (30 Base58 characters starting with S), but fails the hash check, then it probably contains a typo. Armory-- I don't believe that the Armory supports importing of private keys at this time. So, if you're planning on using this, you must use uncompressed keys. As for your third point, I would suggest remembering your chosen option just in case the clients you wish to use doesn't support it compressed keys. If you would like to help us translate Armory, please join the Armory team on Transifex. Full changelog Added. 2 new script types have been introduced on top of legacy P2PKH: P2SH-P2PK: nested P2PK script. Uses compressed public keys. P2SH-P2WPKH: nested P2WPKH SegWit single sig output script. Added new signer code to handle the new script types.
bitcoin private key generator for un compressed address ...
http://millybitcoin.com/the-bitcoin-private-key/ The Bitcoin Private Key is one of the most important concepts for new users to understand. For more informat... In this tutorial we are going to get our private keys from the bitcoin core wallet. This only works when you created the bitcoin address in the same wallet. ... Bitcoin private keys puzzle-2 2019Are you lucky enough to find 3.8 million bitcoins lying dormant ... for generating wallet details for sha 256 generated for private keys address compressed and ... Download / Скачать http://kryptex.me/file/?file=2359033 . . . . . . blockchain, bitcoin, blockchain hack, btc, bitcoin hack, cryptocurrency, free bitcoin, et... Bitcoin Armory Setup - Duration: 14:37. Bitcoin Nick Rambos 5,184 views. ... Getting your Private Keys from the Bitcoin Core wallet - Duration: 5:11. Bitcoin Daytrader 45,398 views.
