Topic: Multibit HD to electrum or BRD ? (Read 322 times)

Great, thk you @HCP for this trick

Yes, I understand about .

This fake balance was very close of what I thought I had lost.

What a pity, but that's life!

Thank you very much for all your posts, explanations. It has been a pleasure to exchange with you.

Kind regards

May

If you actually click on the invididual transactions, it should show you the fees. A lot of (most? all?) wallets don't show the transaction fee on the transaction history page... it is usually only shown on the transaction detail page.

The transaction history page will usually show you the total amount that was spent (being the total sent + transaction fee).

I think some of this confusion has simply been caused by the fast sync giving you an incorrect balance, when you then believe to be your actual balance... and then the shock of seeing the actual balance as reported by Electrum.

The money hasn't been lost or stolen or anything like that... it was simply an issue with the BRD fast sync (and to a certain extent your memory) reporting an incorrect amount which lead you to believe you had more coins than you actually did.

Hi @HCP,

Well, in fact I didn't touch the wallet since 2017. Between 2016 an 2017, I made many transactions. Now when I am looking at the history of multibit HD in the panel, I don't see any fees https://snipboard.io/zsugFD.jpg. This screen capture is today.

When I export the csv file from multibit HD, I have these 'transactions fees that appear', I don't really understand because I didn't notice these fees in 2016-2017. https://snipboard.io/VqDgCs.jpg

The only transaction I made since this period was with BRD 2 weeks ago, and they have a mode slow (=low fees), and it was transparent. No huge amount.
So where these fees come from, I don't know.

I have to admit, it's quite technical for me. In 2017, I didn't know nothing about bitcoin. And I still don't know so much.


I thank you very much for this information. It will help me.


I am gonna try to understand this.

If you have time and if you want to have a look at the csv file, you can give me your mail, no matter for me.
You are a great help since the beginning but I have to confess I am still in the smog. I should follow  a course on the blockchain   

About the only thing you can do is use a wallet that allows the setting of custom fees and try to be more aware of the network status at the time you go to send a transaction...

https://mempool.space/ and https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,24h,weight give good overviews of the current state of the network and with a bit of practice you can determine a "decent" rate that will suit your purposes (ie. cheapest option, don't care about how long it takes to confirm vs. must be next confirmed in next block etc).

A lot of wallets try to simplify fees to things like "low", "normal" and "high"... but don't give any indication as to what those rates actually are (or mean)... and because the network can be quite volatile, you can end up over (or under) paying by a substantial amount!

I'd have to look at all the transaction details to see exactly why your total fees paid were so high, but the normal causes are:
- Using legacy UTXOs as inputs. Legacy UTXOs are much larger than SegWit UTXOs, so using older Legacy addresses will mean that when you go to spend the coins, your transaction will have a larger total data size. As the total fee is (size * fee rate), then logicially a larger total data size == higher total fee.

- Using multiple inputs to a transaction. Having multiple inputs (Regardless of SegWit or Legacy) will result in a transaction with a larger overall data size. As above, larger data size = higher total fee. This is usually the result of collecting a lot of small amounts of BTC from mining or faucets etc and then trying to spend them all at once. Can be somewhat mitigated by occasionally consolidating your inputs when the network is not busy and the fee rates are low. That way, when the rates are higher... you'll likely only need 1 input and the smaller transaction size helps offset the higher fee rate required.

Yes...not cool. Do you think @HCP there was anyway to escape this "substantial amount"?

I would like to have more info about BRD Fast sync, but for the moment I have not. I am gonna send a new message. I am trying to recover old multibit HD transaction history to see if these transactions are in it.

I am a little bit confused about this balance 0.38 => 0.04. I am gonna dig a little bit.
I will tell you if i get more info.

Thkx for your help to make me understand this craziness


May

Crazy that the fees made such a huge difference to the balance! That's quite a substantial amount spent!


The only reasons I could see for them no appearing in the fast sync would be some sort of "Gap Limit" limitation (ie the system was simply not generating enough "new" addresses to check and missed those 3 transactions) or it was caused by some sort of timeout in the sync process.

I'm not overly familiar with BRD as I haven't used it in years (As I recall the app wouldn't run on rooted devices and I was heavily involved in Android Custom ROM development at the time so was using rooted devices) so you would need to talk to the app Dev(s) and ask them why the fast sync misses those transactions... fastsync is some custom system they have developed to replace SPV, so it might be a bug that they can fix.

@HCP so after have been verifying 2 or 3 times, I finally added the fees and the total match the balance showed in BRD slow sync or eletcrum.
I am gonna continue to better understand what was these 3 transactions that don't appear in Fast Sync. Do you have any the idea why these 3 transactions didn't appear at first ?

Thank your for your great help

Wait... so the 0.0139 BTC amount is what you have calculated manually using the values in the CSV... but the wallet application is only showing a balance of 0.00382 BTC?

If so, did you add up the fee column in the CSV and check what all the fee's total up to?

@HCP, no it's not. I compared BRD Fast sync csv file with BRD slow sync csv file. I noticed 3 transactions that don't appear in Fast sync.

BRD Fast sync sum = 0,41329236 BTC

BRD Slow sync sum (after synchronization) = 0,01390002 BTC

the 3 transactions correspond exactly to the difference between the two results.

So I don't know what to think. Because my wallet displays actually 0.00382 BTC and it should be at least 0,01390002 BTC

I verified one by one all the transactions in btc.com (addresses).

so if you have any suggestion, you are welcome

Thks for your help

Is the transaction history showing a transaction spending the balance? If so, when was it spent? recently or several years ago?

Hello @HCP,


Ok, it makes sense. Thank you very much for this explanation. All this stuff is new for me and a little bit confusing i have to admit.

But I think that finally, we have touch the issue...unfortunately for me, my initial balance is gone...for ever.

You have been a great help for me 

Ahhhhh ok... Electrum tends to show just the transaction fee when it detects a transaction that sends funds to purely to yourself... ie. you're sending to one of your own receive addresses.

Rather than show 1 send transaction and 1 receive transaction... Electrum rolls them into one transaction and shows the total "net" effect to the wallet balance... which will just be the cost of the transaction fee.

ie. if I have myWalletAddressA and myWalletAddressB... and I currently have 0.25 BTC in my wallet... and I send 0.1 BTC with a fee of 0.00001000 BTC from A to B... Electrum will show 1 transaction as being -0.00001000 BTC.

I've also noticed that some wallets do not include in the "Transaction fee" in the "amount spent"... they show how much you sent to the other address in the history, but the transaction fee isn't included. This can throw manual calculations out if you don't remember to include the fee.


For instance... looking at the spreadsheet:


- BRD says you sent: 0.08027553 to "1BHr2yT4yG8d..." and the fee was 0.0001
- Whereas Electrum says you spent a total of: 0.08037553

Electrum includes the fee in the amount being deducted from your balance... it's not the amount you actually sent to someone, as it is (amount sent + transaction fee). Whereas BRD is "splitting" the 2 items out into separate amounts.

This also explains the "differences" that you have highlighted in the transactions here:


Electrum is including the transaction fee in the amount spent... where BRD (slow and fast) have separated it into: amount sent to other person and the transaction fee. So if you add the transaction fee to the amount sent, you get the same value as Electrum.



For the transactions highlighted here... I think I know what the issue is:



It seems that BRD "Fast" is sometimes not detecting the "change" coming back to your wallet for some reason??!?


Electrum seems to have detected that in this transaction: 086a3c5c65715ef8c8d0e30a32d8e0c419b9b65978691a75ee2b2e282a5e7e07

You sent: 0.0001 to 175BpxeLwANJzakLdZaZW4Vs9K3V5sdeoF... and the rest of the 0.10111943 BTC INPUT was split between the 0.0001 transaction fee... and 0.10091943 BTC going back to your wallet as "change".

Whereas, BRD Fast seems to think that you spent the entire amount... ie. both the receive addresses are being treated by BRD fast as being "External"...
BRD Slow seems to have worked it out ok... and is showing 0.0001 being sent + 0.0001 fee... total spent = 0.0002... just like Electrum.


BRD Fast seems to have done the same thing in the next transaction where you spent the change from above: f79f75508afda9bbab420d039b63f7478232148679f2e3bbe7355d5b4e358cce

It thinks the whole lot has been spent... rather than just 0.0003 + 0.0001 transaction fee (and rest as "change")... BRD Fast thinks you "spent" the entire amount to external addresses + transaction fee.

Why BRD Fast is doing this I do not know... perhaps the change address that was used by MultitBit was out past the BRD "change address gap limit"? Or the "Fast Sync" isn't pregenerating enough addresses to detect "change" properly or something? I really don't know, you'd need to contact the BRD devs and ask them.



Anyway, given what I'm seeing from your spreadsheet (and my personal experience with Electrum) I would say that I am inclined to believe that the balance being displayed by Electrum is likely to be more reliable than BRD Fast... BRD Slow would also seem to be "OK".

I join a screen capture of a csv file where I added BRD Slow sync amount + BRD Fast Sync amount + Electrum

https://snipboard.io/nYVBCj.jpg

I selected a transaction 0.10101943 BTC (BRD Fast sync mode). BRD slow sync displays -0,0001 and Electrum displays -0,0002 BTC 

And here is the blockchain.com address explorer

https://snipboard.io/RafwYK.jpg

It seems that Electrum and BRD slow sync show just the fee transaction.

What do you think ?

@HCP no, sorry it's the opposite. The screen capture shows BRD Fast sync.

Now, when i reinstall BRD wallet in Fast Sync Mode 0.38 BTC has disappeared. Probably due to the new transaction I made.

I am trying to verify all transactions between different wallets. And they don't match. For some transactions I have a difference between BRD and electrum . For example (transaction with the same address), in BRD (Fast sync and Low sync) i have -0,11461172 BTC and with electrum -0,11471172 BTC. It's not a huge difference but it's weird, no ? I verified blockchain.com and it's BRD who's right.

How is this possible ?


Thx

So after a full (slow) sync in BRD it is showing the full 0.38 BTC that you expect to see?   But Electrum and Fast Sync were showing smaller balances?

Thanks @NotATether for the explanation.

You can't lose BTC during the BCH fork. The only possible way you could possibly lose your BTC is if *after* the fork, you (somehow) tried to incorrectly claim the BCH before you sent the BTC to some other address first.

Thank you @HCP for your answer. I understand better the code to pu tin the console.


In fact no, the settings were ok. https://snipboard.io/xj9bAD.jpg

Following your advice and BRD suggestions, I let the BRD wallet sync in slow mode and made a transaction. Then I tried to understand the gap between balance by analyzing csv files. In BRD Fast sync, 4 transactions are missing.

I tried to verify with block but for one address, I have many transactions that don't match my csv files.

I am gonna send all these csv files to BRD support.

My question is: is it possible that I lost BTC during a fork or BCH creation?

"False" makes it generate "receive" addresses... "True" makes it generate "change" addresses... if you look at the "Addresses" tab (may need to use "view -> show addresses" to see the tab), you will see all the "extra" addresses that you have generated... they will likely be highlighted in red to indicate they are out past the "gap limit".


That *might* explain the differences if the first wallet was showing mBTC while Electrum was showing BTC and you've just missed a 0 and the balances are actually 0.38 mBTC and 0.0004 BTC


As for the differences, it seems like that is just down to sync issues with BRD... the values on the blockexplorers are almost certainly the "true" values that the addresses contain. I would trust them over a potentially unsynced wallet.

@HCP, ok thank you for your clear explanations.

So here si what I found, history csv file from BRD and electrum don't match, and worst they are not in the same order  I have transactions in BRD that don't correspond when compared with Blockcypher.

Transactions error in BRD file that I noticed:

• 16bZrJtUN6Z8vem25mmYcQsYdNNpK914zv

this address returns many transaction in BRD file from various send adresses. Sometimes, it seems that the wallet has split the amount from the same address. When I try to add up all these little amount from the BRD file, this doesn't match the blockcypher result.

• 1hdcAse8SiFDnoDwAKqNA1CnRMZ6gxrtK

-0.09550433999999999 in BRD and 0,00097 in Blockcypher

• 15mhRUaBCx9M4dnC3RV8kPgEDwKV4xxehE

-0.01391466 in BRD and 1,18839466 in Blockcypher
[/list]

So, i am gonna try to let BRD wallet sync in slow mode and after compare both csv files.


I tried both code but I didn't notice any change with the history or with the balance. I put in range(300).

Why to use different boolean operators in this code ?

denomination: ok, I had changed it in BTC when i recovered the wallet.

Your help is crucial for me and it's also very interesting to exchange on this topic. Any ideas are welcome.

Mat