|
Title: 465k Transaction... Post by: nibor on March 29, 2013, 03:43:46 PM https://blockchain.info/tx/659135664894e50040830edb516a76f704fd2be409ecd8d1ea9916c002ab28a2
Surprised that did not cause a fork! Is a good testcase - is it a new record sized transaction? Title: Re: 465k Transaction... Post by: kokjo on March 29, 2013, 03:48:22 PM Surprised that did not cause a fork! why? Title: Re: 465k Transaction... Post by: Jocky on March 29, 2013, 03:54:24 PM Are you sure you know what a fork is? A fork is the situation when two groups of miners start on the same blockchain, and make two separate ones. Big transactions are just a SoB to verify, I couldn't think of a reason it would cause a fork. But I may be wrong.
Title: Re: 465k Transaction... Post by: kokjo on March 29, 2013, 04:01:51 PM Are you sure you know what a fork is? A fork is the situation when two groups of miners start on the same blockchain, and make two separate ones. Big transactions are just a SoB to verify, I couldn't think of a reason it would cause a fork. But I may be wrong. conclusion: OP is a fool.Title: Re: 465k Transaction... Post by: MPOE-PR on March 29, 2013, 04:13:48 PM https://blockchain.info/tx/659135664894e50040830edb516a76f704fd2be409ecd8d1ea9916c002ab28a2 Surprised that did not cause a fork! Is a good testcase - is it a new record sized transaction? Sweet. Quote Fix the motherfucking code before you have to be fired. To recap : a. If I want to make 1 Mb txs I make 1 Mb txs ; b. correct inputs are selected to feed the outputs as if a human or better was doing the selecting. ~source (http://polimedia.us/trilema/2013/bitcoind-not-quite-ready-for-prime-time/) I guess that takes care of a. Nice going! Title: Re: 465k Transaction... Post by: wtfvanity on March 29, 2013, 04:19:13 PM Code: Total Input 10.73468425 BTC Holy crap... they have $1000 in coins, and they spend $300 to send $700... yikes. Title: Re: 465k Transaction... Post by: Gavin Andresen on March 29, 2013, 04:28:21 PM Holy crap... they have $1000 in coins, and they spend $300 to send $700... yikes. Transactions larger than 100K are non-standard now, so I doubt the big transaction was ever broadcast. Almost certainly the transaction belonged to the miner, and they paid the fees to themself. Title: Re: 465k Transaction... Post by: wtfvanity on March 29, 2013, 04:34:40 PM Holy crap... they have $1000 in coins, and they spend $300 to send $700... yikes. Transactions larger than 100K are non-standard now, so I doubt the big transaction was ever broadcast. Almost certainly the transaction belonged to the miner, and they paid the fees to themself. Thanks, that's interesting to know. Title: Re: 465k Transaction... Post by: Peter Todd on April 01, 2013, 03:15:04 PM Holy crap... they have $1000 in coins, and they spend $300 to send $700... yikes. Transactions larger than 100K are non-standard now, so I doubt the big transaction was ever broadcast. Almost certainly the transaction belonged to the miner, and they paid the fees to themself. There are enough old nodes still running on the network to get 100k txs propagated to miners if you start with a well connected node. |