-snip-
Interesting, but still doesn't tell us much. BTW I run Bitcoin-qt with the following parameters: "F:\[censored]\bitcoin-qt.exe" -datadir=F:\[censored] --checkblocks=10
Does the checkblocks have any influence on the crash?
I don't think it should. You could try once again with that parameter removed. If I want to re-index I need to append -reindex -dbcache=2048 correct? I have 8 GB of RAM, how high should I put dbcache for the best result?
Yes, that would set the dbcache to ~2GB. I think that's fine on a 8 GB system as long as you don't do anything that requires a lot of RAM during the reindex.
Keep in mind that you shouldn't bump your own thread like this more than once in 24 hours. Use the edit button. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Insubstantial.
|
|
|
|
Is that all that's in the log? Does it hang and then you kill it, or does it crash by itself?
There doesn't seem to be an apparent cause for this crash from what I can see. I also doubt that it's a hardware problem as it would likely crash sooner (although still possible). The window looks like in the screenshot (not responding) in windows if you then clock the window it starts to "look for a solution" and then gives you a window to exit the crashed application.
This is Windows 7 right? Did this happen once or multiple times or does it make you do a reindex after the first crash? You can speed up a reindex by increasing your dbcache, however this error my not be a singular event. |
|
|
|
I read both releases notes you gave me but I still don't fully get it. I mean I understand that to disable it I should set it to "0" but to enable , I should put any number between 0-550 and that will enable it ?  1 should do the job ? You need to set it to a minimum of 550 for it to work. Read: The minimal value above 0 is 550.
|
|
|
|
I checked the debug.log and couldn't find anything interesting myself. I pasted it below:
-snip-
I can't seem to find anything that is really interesting either. Should try out various stuff, although I'll send you a PM. Seems a bit off-topic here to debug user-specific problems. |
|
|
|
I just upgraded to 0.13.0 from 0.10.2 and when I try to start it it hangs and crashes before the GUI is fully loaded on the "done loading" screen.
Interesting. Could you post the information from your debug.log (found in the directory where your wallet is)? Without knowing more, we would be guessing what the problem is. Is there any way for me to avoid a (slow and long) reindex?  If it requires a reindex, then no. You can speed it up by increasing your dbcache.
It might be better to open your own thread about this problem. |
|
|
|
I would actually be less interested if the number was increased. The number 21 isn't anything special either, it's rather trivial. Luckily, this isn't going to happen. I think sticking to the original plan is much better. I expect this auction to be quite fun to watch   It's probably going to be one of the best auctions in quite some time! |
|
|
|
Using Chrome and Safari. Same on both. No different add-ons from usual (ad block only, on Chrome).
Okay, then that shouldn't be the issue. I guess it was just some kind of bug in my account. I just wondered if there was something being changed on the background.
Are you able to reproduce it, or was this just a one-time thing? I doubt that there we some changes in the background. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Illegal.
|
|
|
|
1. How to activate this pruning mode ? I assume It's not automatic
No, it's not automatic. To enable pruning you have to: To enable block pruning set prune=<N> on the command line or in bitcoin.conf, where N is the number of MiB to allot for raw block & undo data. A value of 0 disables pruning. The minimal value above 0 is 550.
You can read more about it in 0.11.0 and in 0.12.0 release notes. 2. Pruning mode will work with SegWit , and other features or downloading the whole blockchain is needed
I don't see a reason for which it shouldn't work with Segwit (i.e. why implement it in the first place if you're going to invalidate it +0.1.1 versions later). |
|
|
|
"Warning; this version is obolete;upgrade required!"
That's likely because of soft-fork changes that aren't supported by your current client. My question is : Do i have to upgrade ?
You don't have to, but you should upgrade. Or can i continue using old version safely ?
Yes, you can, but you shouldn't. Lol, a lot of people is known if the new update is always having any improvement but maybe the op is still worried about upgrading bitcoin core into new version because worried to getting any bug or error in them.
No. There are no 'major bugs' AFAIK that should cause you trouble. |
|
|
|
Aside from the occasional empty watchlist which fixes itself after a refresh, everything seems fine here. What browser(s) are you using? Also check your list of addons/extensions as something may be causing your unexpected problems. Maybe you mistaken the new reply posts or the unread post since last visit button and you assumed it's the watchlist? It never happened in my case.
That's a probability; it shows 44 pages for me in comparison to less than 10 for the watch list. |
|
|
|
A huge price increase will only make people sell everything they have and walk away (at least most of them will) so I'd say having Mass adoption is much better (and which will eventually lead into a stable price increase)
As much as such people want to consider themselves beyond average, or 'aware', they aren't either. Anyone who does this is not able to keep their own greed under control. Aside from speculators and traders, I still don't see the point of selling Bitcoin when you can use it. It is a currency after all. also if we have a huge and stable price increase everybody will want to jump on the wagon.
I'm pretty sure that volatility isn't the primary turn-off, i.e. stability won't make "everyone jump on the wagon". Yeah this is good idea but how we can start it and how we can get big company?
You can keep sending suggestive emails to the appropriate department of a company, asking them to introduce Bitcoin as a payment option.
A 'huge price increase' also known as a bubble, isn't specially beneficial for Bitcoin. We've already had a few of those in the past. User adoption is the key. |
|
|
|
|
So let's compare the current status and the potential government coin and how they compare to Bitcoin.
Current system : Government Coin
1) Centralized system - Centralized system (It's highly doubtful that it will be otherwise).
2) Censorship - Censorship (standardized practice).
3) Mutable/reversible - Mutable/reversible (otherwise they have no control over it).
Bitcoin:
1) Decentralized system.
2) Censorship resistant.
3) Immutable/irreversible.
So please explain why would people go back to the same stuff that they wanted to get away from in the first place?
|
|
|
|
Some guys misunderstanding op he said sending $1.50 worth btc Blockchain charge fees $0.25 worth btc.I don't think its normal.
Bullshit. The amount of $ transacted has nothing to do with the fee that is required to be paid. Most of the people not having 1000 btc and they paid $0.25 worth btc for their transaction fees.
No. You have no numbers to back this up, you're just posting nonsense. the fee is too high use an other wallet i think with coinbase are a little bit low
Do not use Coinbase as your wallet. This is counter-intuitive to Bitcoin. I am not familiar with this much, so could you please explain what you mean by running your own full node? If you would do this, would you not need some massive computer power or such?
No. Read this: Full node. |
|
|
|
Exactly. One motivation behind Bitcoin's invention was to do away with centralized payment service providers (banks). It's weird that so many people voluntarily choose centralized payment providers and then complain about them charging fees. Why can't these people use free wallet software, which is very easy?
There is practically no reason to opt for a web-wallet instead a SPV one. One could argue that they have 2FA, but that can be pretty useless depending on how your system is compromised. I agree with this for a huge amount of 1 BTC and just getting $0.25 for fee that is very small
Bullshit. Again, the amount of Bitcoins that are being transferred is irrelevant. The same fee could have been necessary for a $1 transaction. If you think that those fees are too high for you, then why don't you just lower the fee just like what you did before ($0.11) ?
Adding an inadequate amount as a fee for a TX will prolong its confirmation time (or could even possibly get dropped by the network eventually). |
|
|
|
this is a good idea (even tho im not playing this game) im old league of legends player, so my question are you playing that and you might be interested in making tournoment like this in league? (if not  ) i would but im not too good in organisation  regards. -Katerniko1 I've used to play that, but I have quit quite some time ago. While the tournament may be interesting, it would be much harder to execute as we'd be talking about a lot more players and a lot more playtime. Rocket League games are ~6-10 minutes on average long (5 minute timer). I'm not sure if we are able to assemble a 16 man tournament here, but I'll give it a week or so before we abandon the idea. |
|
|
|
Sorry to be harsh, but that coin really doesn't look good. It's unlikely that you'll get your asking price. Personally, I would pay 1.05 for it.
That's the exact same impression that I got when I looked at the images.
OP if you want to possibly achieve a higher price, I suggest getting it graded. Otherwise, I highly doubt that anyone is going to pay 1.5 BTC for a coin that does look very bad on the pictures. |
|
|
|
I sent 4 bitcoin and pay only $0.08 fee. It depends on the transaction size and age of the coin. I do use my own full node.
It doesn't matter that you're using your own node though. There's still a decent amount of nodes that both receive and relay low fee transactions. This policy changes a bit in 0.13.0 as the nodes will share minrelayfee information, e.g. node A won't relay transactions to Node B which node B wouldn't relay anyways (this is a waste of bandwidth). can the confirmation be done by one node only?
No. Confirmations have nothing to do with nodes. Confirmations are related to mined blocks; nodes are used for relaying TX's and blocks. how this can do against sybil attach? i thought that there were the need of multiple node to verify the ttransaction and confirm it
No. Read this book: Bitcoin For Dummies. If you want to use premium wallets like blockchain you have to give them good fees.
No. Blockchain.info is not a premium wallet; it's just a web wallet. Those should be generally avoided. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
