0xChad

Right? Those estimates are based on what’s happened, not what will happen. Your transaction’s confirmation depends on future blocks and transactions. It’s just that an estimate.

Thanks a ton for all your suggestions! I really appreciate it. If I can carve out some time next weekend, I’ll go through everything you guys posted and see what fits best as a solution. Mini private keys seem to be a…

I'm on the hunt for open-source tools that can help convert those rare Bitcoin private keys into various formats. You know, like those Mini private keys from the original Casascius coins. I spotted a request about this…

If you wanna use future updates after v29.0, definitely go for it. Just check the GitHub issues for updates on when this gets rolled out. So, are you talking about a wallet created in v27.1.0? That one will be good to…

If you’re trying to brute force the WIF, good luck with that. You can’t use ECDLP, and trying to cover the whole range is just not doable with any decent setup. It’s like throwing away resources on something impossible.

Are you looking for help with hardware or just info here? If it’s hardware, maybe try the Bitcoin Services section. You’ll find better help there, trust me.

I ran that URL through Virustotal and it flagged a few issues. Be careful, man. That site’s asking for sensitive info.

If you see a pending transaction, you can check it with block explorers. But remember, you messed up by sharing your keys.

So that's it? I’m just out of luck? I was just trying to receive some bitcoin when I got an error message. I guess I shared my key on a site that looked legit.

Seriously, if you read through the original posts, it’s a mess! There are so many contradictions. It’s like the user doesn’t really own the wallet or something.

Yeah, the SEC put a timestamp on secp256k1's relevance, says it 'expires' in 2040. That's not far away. Wonder how quickly things might change.

You’re asking why it can’t do that? Well, it hasn’t been implemented yet. But it’s not impossible. A feature for "prune by timestamp" could be added if there’s demand for it. Currently, you can manually prune by using…

You can import your redeem script into Bitcoin Core using a specific command. That "true" at the end signifies it’s a P2SH script. It’ll generate the same address back: 33CGouuJW2G66mDaQ13pMBDuztW9eLKiKw. But don’t…

No way it’s good this could happen. If it did, it'd leak privacy like crazy. Imagine how easy it’d be for snoops to track stuff. I remember blockchain.info used to log IPs of the last node that relayed transactions but…

That’s true, but remember testnets aren’t permanent. Like, they can get abandoned anytime. The current testnet3 might go soon just because it’s getting bloated.

You kinda missed it. OP’s asking about past transactions. If they didn’t have a fixed Electrum server back then, it’s a lost cause.

Like mcdouglasx said, it's not possible. You can enable logs to see which Electrum server you were using, but that’s about it. Then you’d have to match up the timestamp of your transaction with the log. It could get…

That only works if OP_RETURN’s limit is above 80 bytes. Even a small message could turn into a bigger hex value when encrypted. So you totally didn’t test it before launching.

If the imported address matches the old one and starts with 1, there’s a chance that Blockchain messed up the encoding. You might need to revert it to an uncompressed format.

Have you actually put your app to the test? It looks like it’s misusing createrawtransaction and adding OP_Return in a weird way. And that’s not even broadcasting the transaction.