Topic: Electrum to Electrum - transaction "lost" (Read 582 times)

I would tend to agree... unfortunately, none of us except the OP were there... and know exactly what has transpired. To a certain extent we have to take the OP's word for what they did and what information they have... and that the information they are providing is true and correct.

However, a set of 12 seed words doesn't magically start producing different wallet addresses.

So, it's either the correct seed and some other variable like the seed extenstion phrase or derivation path has changed, or "BIP39 seed" option was selected, or it's some weird bug... or the seed is just wrong.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I wish the OP the best of luck, but there really isn't anything "new" to suggest at this point...

I can't agree more.
But I bet he'll insist that it's the right seed phrase. He said it multiple times in his two threads already.

And he also said that it might be the old version corruption bug (perhaps, done in the session when he sent the 2 transactions).
I've already gave up on the finding a solution in my last reply to OP because his situation looks hopeless, aside from his claims and the results are contradicting.
Recovering deleted files from an encrypted drive/OS is troublesome enough, moreover, the flash drive is unavailable:

I read the GitHub comment about file corruption caused by deleting the wallet file from outside the app. I don't see how it fits this story. TAILS is amnesiac, all files are deleted on shutdown, so that bug could only affect a wallet created within a TAILS session. The workflow - create wallet, write seed phrase, copy & paste address to Windows Electrum, send transaction - would have to be fairly contorted to write the empty wallet's seed phrase and copy&paste the other wallet's address. Maybe I'm overthinking, and the out-of-app file deletion is exactly the contortion which would cause this

There is also his claim that he successfully restored the wallet with seed words in TAILS before installing the Appimage. I'm inclined to believe this. If it's true, then the file corruption problem is irrelevant, whether it occurred or not

I suggest the seed phrase he's using now is from a fresh wallet created with the 3.3.8 Appimage, an empty wallet. The seed words for accessing the coin in the older version Electrum wallet are somewhere else, or lost. This contradicts his claim that he has the right seed words. In the absence of proof and 19 months passage of time, it's more likely than any other guess, in my opinion

Great, everything seems to be accurate.

But the issue is: his current seed phrase (he's positive that it's the correct one) can't restore his previous wallet.
He mentioned that he had upgraded his "E_Tails" using the appimage; and he believe that it's the corruption bug based from the issue's replies (in GitHub).
With those info, it could be the corruption bug.

Some notes from memory ...

Around the time of this transaction, Electrum users were being phished using the (previously) built-in server-to-client messaging function. The initial response to this was to remove the messaging function. Some users didn't upgrade, continued to suffer from the phishing problem, so there was a decision to configure Electrum servers to refuse to connect to clients older than 3.3.4, to force users to upgrade

TAILS does not update very frequently, so there was a period where the Electrum built-in to TAILS was unable to connect to servers. Also, the Python source of the post 3.3.4 versions required a later Python version than available in TAILS. A "binary" Electrum package (Appimage) was built and made available, and then (at least in Reddit) it was repeatedly promoted as "How to run Electrum 3.3.8 in TAILS", with instructions

Eventually, a later TAILS update had the necessary versions of Python and Electrum

Correct, the first part of the modification should be all that is required... this is the bit that basically bypasses/ignores the checksum (similar to what Electrum does)... You just force it to return true, rather than calculate the checksum and see if it matches etc.

You don't want the second part, the change from "mnemonic"+passphrase --> "electrum"+passphrase as that will break the BIP39 generation...

I've just tested this, and it seems to work.

Electrum seed:

OG Ian Coleman tool, checksum fails:



Modified Ian Coleman tool set to ignore checksum:



Generated addresses:



Addresses in Electrum using BIP39 option and "Legacy" + m/44'/0'/0' path:



FYI, the line of code that needs to be modified was on Line# 28526 on the current version of the Ian Coleman tool:




No. Because that 2nd tool includes the "electrum"+passphrase modification... so any seed that it generates will NOT be BIP39 compliant. The thing you need to realise is that even if you don't explicitly use a BIP39 passphrase (or the "seed extenstion phrase" in Electrum)... there is a default one that is used... in BIP39 it is the word "mnemonic"... in electrum it is the word "electrum". So, even if you leave it blank, the 2 systems will never generate the same seed from the same 12/24 words.


Not quite sure how that factors into things? Your wallet was an old Legacy wallet... it'll most likely be in the m/44'/0'/0' derivation path... they extra "script_type" value is only a factor when creating newer SegWit based wallets.

Well, I could try at least.

Here is a modification on iancoleman that you kind of suggested in the other topic    &   @BlackHatCoiner   posted it https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.57185821    -   how different that modification would be to the already modified tool you've posted here on my topic?
  
Then you did this post in the same topic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.57213565  
      -the 1st  tool is the one you have also posted here
      - the 2nd tool though is different.   Could you I use it for BIP39 Elcetrum seed because you wrote that it bypasses the checksum

or this post from you seems quite appealing too: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49651803

Honestly... not likely to be a derivation path issue then.


Ahhhh that would require something slightly different I believe... as it seems you're trying to get the "BIP39 version" of an Electrum seed.

Generally speaking... an Electrum generated seed will not be a valid BIP39 seed (there are some relatively rare exceptions). So, if you click the "BIP39 seed" and type in an Electrum seed, it will likely show "checksum: failed". Electrum will allow you to go ahead and use it anyway if you really want...

But, to the best of my knowledge, there is no way to replicate this behaviour with the Ian Coleman tool (or the tool I posted). However, it should theoretically be possible by simply modifying the Ian Coleman tool to ignore the checksum calculation.

I'll have a look into it over the weekend and see what I can come up with (if someone else doesn't beat me to it)

1. I created the wallet & kept it runing (didn't close Electrum Software)
2. straight away sent a test transaction
3. couldn't connect to the servers, did some fix & so the circle in the bottom right went to synchronizing, now I could see the test transaction as 'not veriefied'
4. then sent the bigger transaction
5. onlty then I started looking for a solution
______________means I deleted & restored the wallet after the use only_____________

@HCP
Could you tell me how to use the modified tool you posted me earlier on.

Everytime I type in an Electrum seed & keep all the modifications in the tool as it is  (standard derivation path: m/0) the wallet & addresses to it are there.
    - Now let's just say I use the same seed, that was generated by Electrum, to restore a wallet in Electrum software and instead of just going ahead I check the BIP39 & choose derivation path m'44/0'/0'    
    - Q: how can I find this derivation in the tool?     beacause I have tried many different options & I can not find it.

Why am I asking: because on the picture with the two wallets @bitmover hosted, the wallet on the right side is restored with BIP39 & derivation path m/44'/0'/0'  -  I need to find it in the tool.      

Note: I did not restore that wallet in Spt.2019 using derivation path, only after people started suggesting.  (which was after I lost the wallet with the funds)

I have this thought when I could find this derivation path wallet in the tool, it might help ahead in finding the lost wallet.

Yeah... it's looking more and more likely that there are either multiple wallet files or multiple seeds... You can't actually select the derivation path when you create a wallet, only when you are restoring it. So, you would not have been able to get a weird derivation path unless you used the seed to restore the wallet before you even attempted to use it.

And you only get to specify the derivation path if you use a BIP39 seed anyway... with an Electrum seed, it is automatically detected.

My guesses are:
- Multiple Seeds
- Multiple wallet files
- File corruption bug

The first one, you'd have to go through all your notes etc and make sure you are 100% using the correct seed and don't have any other seeds recorded anywhere.

The second and third... well, you'd likely need to have access to the drive media and be able to do a file recovery to see if you could recover the original wallet files... which you don't

If it's what happened, you can only recover it from the deleted wallet files
because the address' private key might only be recoverable by restoring one of those wallet's seed phrase.

Since your current seed phrase restores an entirely different wallet, restored a couple of times with different configurations, both didn't help;
and if it's really the bug, then there's a high chance that the addresses in your screenshot are actually addresses from a deleted/another wallet file brought by the bug.

Lastly, Electrum developers and public server owners don't have access to users' keys and funds, they wont be able to help even if they want to.

What is described in the link is absolutely possible that this is actually what I did.
If so,  is there anything at all that might help, or at least I could try besides file restoration

I could get the addresses but only from  the left wallet >>>>look at the picture from @bitmover
     The left wallet is the seed without BIP39 check
     The right one is with BIP39 check box - from that one I wasn't able to find the address until now.

Keep in Mind both were generated using the same seed & I can recover the right wallet anytime using this derivation path: m/44'/0'/0'

You say above you are now using the modified iancoleman tool to try to find the former adresses/keys. But with the tool have you already been able to get the same adresses and keys you currently have on your Electrum wallet with your seed?

Since it was on that Synchronizing symbol,  I started researching the reason and found out on the Electrum website that my version is outdated & I have to download the appimage & update it manually     &   so I did        &      et voila  it went online straight after.

I did not check the signeture. I could send and receive funds without any problems after the update!   - which means Phishing & malware is out of question!  

@Saint-loup
Once you go into the wallet, on the right bottom side you see the Network status in form of a circle.
Green = online
Blue = online routed via proxy
Red = offline
Synchronizing symbol = sync

So, initially I had it on red, which means it was offline.  Then I did something, tried to fix it and so following it went to Synchronizing symbol and all of sudden I could see the      incoming test transaction.   Since then it was there as 'Not Verified'  
   Thus for me it was clear it went through and eventually will be verified, & so I sent the bigger transaction to that wallet.

@NotATether
Yeah, absolutely.     Just how.......?    
With the modified tool of    iancolman.io  that @HCP   had posted,  I've been trying & until now no result.    Seems I'm trying wrong.   Any tip on that?

Tails version:         3.16.
Electrum version:  I sent an e-mail to Tails support team, hopefully they will reply because they know the answer.  
                              If not, then when I'm right it was 3.3.4   -  might be also prior to this one          

I have used this instructions to download the appimage so that I update the Electrum software manually:
https://electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/tails.html    because the wallet had issues getting online

      But 3.3.4 that problem was fixed  -  so seems like I have used the wallet prior to 3.3.4  -   but as I said, I am not certain.

Edit:
      But based on the screenshots I took of the addresses  - you can see that it is 3.3.4   &   later because the arrow at the drop down menu was added with  v3.3.4   -    means  it was  v3.3.4   or  later

This is not what I understood from your OP and your posts above. You said you were not able to reach any Electrum server, so how could you be able to watch your incoming transactions into your wallet?  



How did you learn your Electrum software was outdated? Did you receive a message/popup on your screen saying that and inviting you to click on a link?

Did you check the signature of the files you've downloaded as suggested by Pooya87 above? If they haven't been modified you can still check their signature.

I was thinking that this might had happened to you: issues/5082#issuecomment-461428986
BTW, the first post is the "old version corruption bug" that you've been mentioning in the other thread.

No, the bug will produce a wallet based from two different wallet files (with different seeds).
So my suggestion was to get all recoverable wallet files so you can try to restore their seed phrase to the latest version.
Changing the derivation path will only derive a different master key but it's still based from the same seed; not what's described in the issue.

With the current data and the flash drive gone, I have no other suggestions.

@nc50lc

Case of corruption bug?  I consider it too.   Is either that or the wrong derivation path,  anything else is out questions.


Unfortunately, I won't be able of doing it!    Tails was on an USB stick & that stick was gone since mid-end Oct. 2019. Besides that I deleted the wallet files (prior of starting topic in Spt. 2019) as it was advised in guide lines on Tails website.


That might be exactly what it is.   
       -Now, restoring from files is out of question.
       - Can I achieve it trying different derivation paths?  - restoring the right private key


Would you clerify it?    I don't think is somehow related with my problem but I would like to understand it still.


As mentioned above.........
No