Personally I have found it very strange that the core devs are now fighting against "Gavin and Mike".

Although I am not really interested in the politics itself I will say that I would much prefer to see consensus from all the devs than to have two (currently) non-devs simply take over Bitcoin in a manner that might result in many of the core devs leaving the project.

It would appear you are now fine: https://blockchain.info/tx/7b4b275b6fe8184397d9ce3e853552e5a28b1b746245d46a239efce2da7f7154

Hopefully the tx will get confirmed (but just because blockchain.info accepted it being pushed doesn't necessarily mean it will be confirmed - but it is a good sign that the tx was picked up by your client as that means the tx is "standard" in regards to the fee amount).

Keep following the tx on blockchain.info and your wallet to make sure it does confirm (after a single confirm you should be okay).

Sometimes I have found that due to poor internet connectivity pushing the tx via blockchain.info does do the trick (also my bitcoin-qt is well behind now so that might be another reason I have seen the same problem and solved it the same way).

If it lacks a sufficient fee then it won't really help to have others rebroadcast it at all.

Although I have been "tarred" by BadBear over a drunken mistake (that didn't lead to anyone losing any BTC but has resulted in my account now looking like that of a "scammer") if you like I will review any raw tx changes that Danny makes (as I do have the skills to create raw txs myself) and post the results in this topic (and hopefully there will be some others knowledgeable enough that will do the same).

Looking at your raw tx with a decoder the output is as follows:


So the change that would be required would be to change the "value" amount from 99999237 to say 999 (although perhaps you could get away with a lesser fee).

Most importantly you need to make sure that *only* the "value" looks different (when you are given the changed script).

My understanding (from talking to an electronics expert) is that all frequencies above say 10 Hz could be protected (assuming charging will be done this way) and that a "side-channel" attack with 10 Hz would not be likely to be a serious vulnerability (but I am no expert).

And if we take a look at your signature then we can see the reason why this has happened.

People get paid to post "crap" so how surprising is it that the forum no longer has anyone posting anything of value?

It should also be noted that many of the mods also are being paid to post (via "ad-sigs") so even criticising them tends to actually "land you in trouble" (crap that emanates from mods is apparently less stinky).

I for one will not be using the "new forum" as it has become clear that bitcointalk.org only cares about allowing people to earn money from ad-sig campaigns (it cares nothing for the quality of posts).

It is funny that even people like DannyHamilton (who have put up with the ad-sig crap for over a year by creating huge ignore lists) are starting to post less and less (I guess it wears everyone down eventually).

I can only assume that this forum is either corrupted or retarded as it seems the very purpose of it now is to allow idiots to earn money from posting rubbish (it seems that the forum's credo now is that "being popular is all that matters").

Anyway - no need for you mods to worry about me as I won't be joining your new forum (enjoy your ad-sig rewards and the ad-sig posts).

After having read about the various "side-channel" attacks that will happen with anything that is "connected" I have come to the conclusion that the best way that you can "secure" cryptographic keys is by using a smart phone that is permanently surrounded by a Faraday cage.

I have discussed the problem of charging such a phone and from what I understand shielding all but extremely low frequencies will prevent side-channel attacks but would still allow for DC charging and also if the material is transparent enough for QR codes then charging using solar should be possible (although am not sure how practical that would be with current technology).

Why use a (smart) mobile phone?

Simply because it is the cheapest device that will do QR codes, has a camera and has enough processing power to do the cryptographic things like signing offline txs.

Such a device could also be used for doing QR code "logins" such as has been developed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=310282.0

There was a crowd-funded project that created a "Faraday cage pouch" for mobile funds a few years back (sorry can't find the link now) so perhaps this idea could be done in a similar way (I am not wanting to have any "ownership" of anything for this idea).

My understanding is that the same tech that is used to create "tinted windows" can actually be applied to creating "see through Faraday cages" which would then allow QR codes to be used for data transfer (the safest way I think transfers can be done).

As far as doing Bitcoin txs "offline" via QR codes I developed the CIYAM Safe (https://susestudio.com/a/kp8B3G/ciyam-safe) some years back - I'm not sure if that would be suitable for mobile phones but I would be happy to help a savvy developer to work out how to do the same thing on Android and/or iOS.

I think that "bitcoind" has actually dragged its feet compared to other wallets mostly because the devs opinion is that other wallets *should* be preferred (and "bitcoind" more and more being targeted towards non-wallet users).

But even if sticking with Bitcoin Core - isn't it possible to lock/unlock UTXOs via the "coin control" feature in the "bitcoin-qt" wallet UI?

You can *use* offline storage but admittedly it is a little more effort and typically involves having to do raw transactions.

Another more simple approach you could use is to have two different wallets - I forget whether there is a command-line option to choose a wallet directory but otherwise you could probably whip up some sort of script that copies the wallet contents before starting bitcoind.

There are also "other clients" that actually do give you multiple wallets (so maybe consider changing to one of those).

I see - have you not considered perhaps using "watch only addresses" and keeping your "more private" private keys completely offline (therefore impossible for bitcoind to accidentally use)?

If your requirement is to lock each output (that matches an address) for a given tx then yes that would be they way to do it (although I don't know why you are wanting to do this).

A typical tx you create will only have (at most) one output that you own (for change) but of course if txs are being created manually or via some special kind of script then anything is possible (and even without doing anything tricky there is nothing to stop you from creating a tx with multiple outputs where every address is actually one of your own rather than someone else's).

It's always there (even if there is only one output).

Have you tried using "decoderawtransaction"?

If the tx only contains one output then just use 0 but do remember that txs will often have a "change" output (so not that often that a tx has only one output).

If you know the txid then you can "decoderawtransaction" to see all the inputs and outputs.

All UTXOs have a "vout" so assuming the "lockunspent" is actually locking a UTXO it would require that to be provided (unless the command has been designed to lock *all* UTXOs tied to the same tx if no explicit vout is provided).

When you create a Bitcoin tx one or more UTXOs (Unspent Transaction Outputs) are the "inputs" with the "outputs" becoming new UTXOs created by the transaction.

Understanding UTXOs is a fundamental part of understanding how Bitcoin works (so do take the time to study this if you are not 100% sure of it).

I (and the OP) am referring to Phuket (not Bangkok) airport and certainly back in 2012 there were no "metered" taxis on Phuket island (yes of course Bangkok is very straight forward and you have a few choices).

As I stated the prices may well have gone up quite a bit in the last few years but if the situation hasn't changed a lot then you can probably still expect to pay 10x as much going from Phuket airport to your accommodation as you would in Bangkok.

Sorry - I have no idea about that at all (assuming that when you refer to static builds you mean the use of "static libs" vs. "dynamic libs").

In general though it easier to work with dynamic (or shared) libraries in open source projects (my own project only works with dynamic libs for this reason).

If it works correctly could you please post to confirm that (I haven't been able to test that myself as for some reason the latest versions of Bitcoin are unable to connect to nodes properly for me so I am actually probably going to change to using Electrum).

Doesn't the current version support "watch-only wallet addresses" (I thought it did from what I had read)?

Assuming it does wouldn't their UTXOs appear in the "listunspent" RPC call (which is about all you need for creating a raw tx)?

From memory I ended up paying at least 300 baht for a 5 min. journey (in Bangkok a 10 min. journey at the time would have been only 60 baht thus my estimate of paying 10x as much) because of not organising anything (expecting I'd be able to get a taxi that would use a meter - for a start they have no taxis with meters on the island at all and good luck trying to bargain with them).

So unless the pickup service is more than 300 baht then I would think you'd be better off to take that (prices may have increased since I was there in 2012 of course).

Also to save money getting around I'd recommend hiring a motor scooter (assuming you know how to ride one).