That's because it only ever applied to free transactions, which miners are indeed moving away from. Core still prioritises free transactions this way when mining, but you need to change the default settings to allow free transactions in the first place. Most miners don't, but since some do, this is what determines whether a particular free transaction will take several days to be confirmed or never. It's probably better to just pay the recommended fee than to rely on this behaviour, though.
So my assumption was correct, thank you for the information. The times of 'free transactions' are behind us. It's not delayed because of that's always repeated and waste my time only to wait for clock confirmation, I hope there is a way about this problem.
This does not make sense. Wait for LN project to solve this problem.
LN is not trying to solve "this problem". One could argue that it will be able to provide near instant transactions (only after you have locked funds) since it doesn't require confirmations. I would say its average because we can't compare it to paypal as paypal is proven and tested while BTC is presently progressing and is not well maintain as paypal.
Nonsense. Bitcoin is proven and tested as well and has better "network health" (the up-time is 99.990285451% according to the website that tracks this). |
|
|
|
|
I don't support the people who have many accounts for any reason (there's practically no good reason to have more no matter how you view it [1]), nor do I support the current forum policy (I would prefer that account sales were disallowed). There are already a few threads about this very topic, so those might be worth reading if you want more insight.
[1] - Profit (via spam, manipulation of own auctions and such) counts in the 'bad reasons' group.
|
|
|
|
I think that gives a greater fee will be prioritized? so the block will be faster solve those who provide greater fee?
No. The amount of fees that could potentially be included in a block will not be able to 'speed' up solving of it. You don't understand how Bitcoin works. bitcoin transaction speed is medium #imo
So medium speed = 1-3 seconds on average. Interesting "opinion". if the btc you are sending has been static for some time (sat in wallet for weeks), it will be confirmed quicker
I've read somewhere that the miners have moved away from this model (I'm not sure whether this is true though, as I can't find direct information about it). if it is of more substantial amount (ie over 1 BTC) it will be confirmed quicker
The amount that is being transferred is irrelevant when it comes to priority. |
|
|
|
In addition, let's not forget that the expression "xthin" itself was invoked as a propaganda tool, every Classic shill was using it to heap scorn on Core for "lack of xthin". If only they put as much effort into the code design as they did into their brand naming, lol.
Hey, Core does not have a 5 - part post with shiny pictures and gifs, so their proposals must be lacking in comparison to BU and Classic. At least the BU folks are not actively trying to pull in people with their campaigns (they don't have much support anyways). I've just read the following on reddit: "I invite Mr. Maxwell to make his 'Xthin Collision Tool' public"--Bitcoin Unlimited Team refutes
after which an explanation was posted which proved the flaw. 
Update: Ops, I've made a mistake in the last part of the post (the tool was not posted, it was a post/explanation by someone else). I've sent a PM to Adrian and corrected the post (with the added link). |
|
|
|
you're right, the transaction did happen quickly, but it sometimes feels his confirmation for a long time, sometimes its confirmation makes people bored waiting.
Bitcoin does not care for your lack of knowledge needed to use it. There is no 'sometimes' and 'long time' for properly constructed transactions (assuming reasonable block-intervals). I think you either didn't include an optimal fee or there was something wrong with the Blockchain network for your transaction to have been unconfirmed for 1 hour.
You're talking about the blockchain.info wallet? Then it might be best to always properly clarify your statements, as there was almost never "something wrong with the blockchain" (since blockchain.info != bitcoin's blockchain), but there are problems with blockchain.info (from time to time). But if you are comparing Bitcoin to other digital money payment processors I am not so sure which one is faster, but Bitcoin is certainly more secure  Bitcoin is still faster. P.S
By the way. Lastest news:
-snip-
That is off-topic. |
|
|
|
No, censorship is not a serious (or even real) problem.
The moderation here is very light-handed, with a few random exceptions when mprep has been drinking or whatever.
Indeed. I'd even say: 'Too light-handed'. Meanwhile, ETH is up.
You're wasting your time trying to promote trash like ETH. I truly wonder why "banksters" are pushing ETH through and trying to use it again Bitcoin. Nevermind; it seems like KNC is still mining somehow, but the total hashrate is under 5%. The number of Classic nodes is under 700 now. |
|
|
|
-snip- It means that it's impossible to earn money in France ?  Don't expect to earn money (not even ROI) with inefficient (outdated) hardware, and especially in places where the electricity is that expensive. I had access to 0.08 USD per 1KW and even with that price it would not be profitable to mine with that device. Mining as a hobby is not possible anymore unless you want to slowly lose money over time.
Mod hint: Please refrain from posting several posts in a row and try to group posts whenever possible. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Insubstantial.
|
|
|
|
Monero is not a trash coin by any means, in fact it's quite the opposite. I'm not going to go into detail in this thread, of course.
I have said that I have nothing specific against Monero. My view spreads across almost all the altcoins. The administrators share your sentiment, I suppose?
Practically almost no staff member cares about the altcoins (AFAIK), so I'd assume that the answer to that question is yes (even though it is unlikely that you would get a reply here). |
|
|
|
The name of the forum is BITCOINtalk, not TRASHCOINtalk (nothing specific against Monero though). |
|
|
|
My bad. Didn't think that through. A guestimate from me would be one to find 5 inputs (That's how many addresses I have with unspent balances rn) and 2 outputs.
It really comes down to how people use it. I tend to 'consolidate' multiple inputs from the same address from time to time. I would be interested in some statistics though (e.g. average amount of inputs and outputs per TX). I wouldn't say it was totally random. I've once gotten a 0.0005 tx (one input two outputs) delayed 3 blocks.
And where is the math behind it? You can't just predict such a number based on your own (past trends). In either case, you'd have to choose a TX size (e.g. 500 bytes) and then try to calculate the necessary (estimated) fees required to get it included into that specific block. |
|
|
|
So why are you talking about the median? It is a completely worthless statistic with regards to this topic. It's a great statistic if you're talking about typical transaction fees, which I believe was the original topic. Assuming the original topic was also on the forum or some other public space, a link to said original topic would be really useful here... There was no real 'topic' here. You can only find a few individuals failing with their ad hominem attempts. It usually just proves to be a waste of time to interact with them. ~Paid for by Blockstream~
I always suspected that you were paid by them! |
|
|
|
- The block is full
The chance of that is high. - There is a high interest to get a transaction into this block
They may or may not be. I don't think having a TX included into that block is anything special. - You are making a 1 input 1 output transaction
Bad assumption. If we have learned anything, then we know that the majority of the TX's are much bigger. If anyone is wondering how they would create a TX with 1 input and 1 output: e.g. Pick 1 input, send to exact same amount to another address while deducting the fee from the amount (there must be no change). I'm going to say a 0.0007-0.001 fee
Random numbers don't help. |
|
|
|
That message is verifying for me. Not sure why minifrij is having problems. But it's true that you shouldn't have put in the extra spaces and characters.
OP had the same message signed with a different signature starting with "HM65..". That message was not signed with the address that was provided here. I've told him this via PM and they have changed it and thus now it works. |
|
|
|
Message verified: 
The correct signature format is: -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- My account <michael555 - u=190734 > has been hacked/lost. Please reset the email to < michad555@gmail.com >. The current date is <10th June 2016 -----BEGIN SIGNATURE----- 1D7upXoL4NhXM461p9M88U3jZZCju98uZv GwJrk6jfDnetMjWK/dmPYi93bJO1BHiAphSAlMeye+7vA2w/IeGCQprNfcX1m0QdS0n4yJjpXnJP2mhwWlLxMdM= -----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
|
|
|
It would put bitcoin on a different path, maybe. Segwit is dangerous and unnecessary at this point.
Correction: A block size limit increase is dangerous and unnecessary. I think your right. But when you tell us Greg laugh's. Then Icebreaker mock's. Carlton mock's and finally Lauda mock's.
I wanted Greg to answer, as he was bothered to laugh at you.
I have no idea why you would pull me into this one. I have used various average TX sizes when doing some basic calculations in regards to capacity, and have even used sizes larger than what franky is showing here today. It comes down to the nature of the use. My transations are is closer to the median in size than to the average. |
|
|
|
Read the following thread. You have to find a Bitcoin (preferably) address that is known to be associated with that account and sign a message with it. |
|
|
|
I have no idea why you're asking a general question such as this when there is so much information available online? You just simply need to use a search engine. Wikipedia says the following: Cryptography or cryptology is the practice and study of techniques for secure communication in the presence of third parties called adversaries. More generally, cryptography is about constructing and analyzing protocols that prevent third parties or the public from reading private messages; various aspects in information security such as data confidentiality, data integrity, authentication, and non-repudiation are central to modern cryptography. Modern cryptography exists at the intersection of the disciplines of mathematics, computer science, and electrical engineering.
Here you can find everything that you need. |
|
|
|
|
Add me to the table please. I'm looking for either the numbers:
#1 or #10
I can offer:
Polished Gold #33
Antique Copper #40
Antique Brass #42
|
|
|
|
Not joking, explain the difference between me subscribing to a magazine and mailing a check, and your 0-confirm transactions. Penny Stock Weekly won't be able to spend the check I sent them until it clears, your trading partner won't be able to spend the unconfirmed transaction. Where's the difference?
So you're saying the following: - Double-spending a TX is easy and can be done by anyone
- It takes the same amount of time for a unconfirmed TX to get confirmed as it takes a check to be cleared.
The time difference is huge. We are talking about proper TX's here.
Update: I'm not going to waste more time on you. What you're trying to pinpoint is not of relevance. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
