Topic: Confirming that my offline-wallet actually have the key to online-wallet address (Read 129 times)
December 17, 2017, 12:06:17 PM
I will. Thanks for the help!
December 17, 2017, 11:42:04 AM
I didn't mean to be claiming anything regarding the Trezor thing. I lost a lot of money when transferring from one Trezor wallet to another and I still don't know why or how it could happen. I only brought it up to try to explain why I'm so incredibly paranoid regarding this topic.
You are missing the point. It is a whole lot harder to mess things up with a Trezor than it is with Armory. Make sure you triple check everything.
December 17, 2017, 11:38:22 AM
Hi,
Thanks for answering!
I managed to find the function for generating a lot of addresses and that way I could find matches between the online and offline wallets.
I didn't mean to be claiming anything regarding the Trezor thing. I lost a lot of money when transferring from one Trezor wallet to another and I still don't know why or how it could happen. I only brought it up to try to explain why I'm so incredibly paranoid regarding this topic.
Anyway, I look forward to getting my remaining coins securely onto Armory wallets and thank you so much for helping out!
//Andy
Thanks for answering!
I managed to find the function for generating a lot of addresses and that way I could find matches between the online and offline wallets.
I didn't mean to be claiming anything regarding the Trezor thing. I lost a lot of money when transferring from one Trezor wallet to another and I still don't know why or how it could happen. I only brought it up to try to explain why I'm so incredibly paranoid regarding this topic.
Anyway, I look forward to getting my remaining coins securely onto Armory wallets and thank you so much for helping out!
//Andy
December 17, 2017, 10:23:56 AM
Just generate the recipient address from your offline machine. I'm very dubious of your Trezor claim.
December 17, 2017, 07:57:17 AM
Hi,
I'm a new Armory user that have been in the bitcoin-space for a while so I have some knowledge of how this technology works. This might sound overly paranoid but bear with me, I have my reasons.
I have set up an offline instance of Armory on an off-line laptop (I even yanked the on-board wifi-card) and I run a full Core node and an on-line instance of Armory on another computer with watching-wallets to every wallet I created in the offline instance of Armory.
Everything works as I expected. There are, however, a couple of things I have searched for answers to without succeeding. The on-line watching-wallets generate different addresses than the off-line wallets (This seems to be exclusively in regards to Segwit addresses). This is probably not an issue since I have been able to sign transactions on the off-line computer so everything is probably as it should be. Despite this I would like to find a way to verify that I actually control the private key to the receiving addresses I use. I realize this probably sound overly paranoid but a couple of weeks ago I lost a few coins when I made a transaction from one Trezor to another. The receiving Trezor generated an address to which it apparently didn't have the keys. If you ask the Trezor support about this they of course claim that this is impossible and that I made some kind of mistake, which maybe I did, I doubt it though. So that's the explanation to my query and why I will never receive another large transaction again without being 100% certain that I control the private keys.
I'm fairly certain that this is possible and probably trivial to accomplish with Armory, but I haven't been able to find any relevant information yet and I would be most grateful for any advice. And just to be clear, I know how to extract the private keys to addresses showing up on my wallets in the off-line instance of Armory. I want to be able to extract the keys to an address that is generated in the online-watching-wallet by somehow telling the offline wallet about the address.
Hopefully this post isn't to incoherent to understand...
Best regards
Andy
I'm a new Armory user that have been in the bitcoin-space for a while so I have some knowledge of how this technology works. This might sound overly paranoid but bear with me, I have my reasons.
I have set up an offline instance of Armory on an off-line laptop (I even yanked the on-board wifi-card) and I run a full Core node and an on-line instance of Armory on another computer with watching-wallets to every wallet I created in the offline instance of Armory.
Everything works as I expected. There are, however, a couple of things I have searched for answers to without succeeding. The on-line watching-wallets generate different addresses than the off-line wallets (This seems to be exclusively in regards to Segwit addresses). This is probably not an issue since I have been able to sign transactions on the off-line computer so everything is probably as it should be. Despite this I would like to find a way to verify that I actually control the private key to the receiving addresses I use. I realize this probably sound overly paranoid but a couple of weeks ago I lost a few coins when I made a transaction from one Trezor to another. The receiving Trezor generated an address to which it apparently didn't have the keys. If you ask the Trezor support about this they of course claim that this is impossible and that I made some kind of mistake, which maybe I did, I doubt it though. So that's the explanation to my query and why I will never receive another large transaction again without being 100% certain that I control the private keys.
I'm fairly certain that this is possible and probably trivial to accomplish with Armory, but I haven't been able to find any relevant information yet and I would be most grateful for any advice. And just to be clear, I know how to extract the private keys to addresses showing up on my wallets in the off-line instance of Armory. I want to be able to extract the keys to an address that is generated in the online-watching-wallet by somehow telling the offline wallet about the address.
Hopefully this post isn't to incoherent to understand...
Best regards
Andy
Jump to: