Is there a reason why you need to be using QT specifically? There are a number of other clients that do not "lose" your private keys after the keypool is "used up"
multibit and/or blockchain.info might be good alternatives if you want a larger keypool (the equivalent)
Thanks. I prefer the functionality of a desktop wallet, and prefer to stick to the original client because it is the most secure & stable & thoroughly tested. It is also fully open source, unlike the other wallets. Regarding Multibit, I've read about the horror stories of the bugs in Multibit which have caused people to lose all of their Bitcoins, and the lame excuses from the developers as to how these bugs only affect a "small portion" of their users. |
|
|
|
|
Hi there,
I am a complete newbie to command line options, and I was wondering if somebody could help give me step-by-step instructions on how to do this?
I am on the Mac, running OS X 10.9.5, and I am also running Bitcoin-QT 0.9.2.1.
I am trying to increase my keypool size to 1000, but I can't seem to get it to work.
From within Bitcoin-QT, I've pulled down from the "Help'" menu to "Debug window", and then I clicked on the "Console" tab, and then I typed in:
bitcoin-qt -keypool=1000
But it returns an error message to me that says:
Method not found (code -32601)
Can somebody please give me step-by-step instructions on how to increase the keypool to 1000? I couldn't find instructions in the Bitcoin Wiki, either.
Thanks!!
|
|
|
|
|
It's always possible that Ethereum might have a brighter future than Bitcoin? Small & nimble development team, rebuilding the idea of a blockchain based on the limitations of Bitcoin's blockchain, and now they have $15 million to put towards development.
|
|
|
|
I was using the ordinary Bitcoin-QT client (0.9.2.1). I used the debug console to create the transaction using the commands:
createrawtransaction ...
signrawtransaction ...
sendrawtransaction ...
I don't think Bitcoin-QT gives a way to choose which coins to spend using ordinary (GUI) methods.
Ahhh… I see. Thanks so much for the clarification! Okay, so if this were to happen to me in the future, I would need to figure out those 3 commands and use the debug console. |
|
|
|
I'm glad your problem seems to be resolved. I've had a similar problem since April 23 -- i.e., over 3 months. I managed to resolve it. I'll share it in case it helps someone in the future. On April 23 I sent a small transaction from myself to myself. I didn't include a fee. Maybe I was cheap or maybe I forgot. I don't remember. I know the confirmation wasn't urgent. Well, it had been sitting in my wallet "unconfirmed" since then -- for over 3 months. At some point I tried the things described in this thread: rebroadcast with a fee, but it wouldn't get pushed onto the network because it looked like it never would. I waited for the transaction to "fall off" the network so I could resend it, but when I checked every few weeks it was still on blockchain.info as "unconfirmed." Yesterday I had an idea: Spend the output of the unconfirmed transaction to myself again, but this time with a fee. I thought maybe a miner would confirm the first transaction in the hopes of being able to confirm the next one (the one with the fee). It worked -- and in a way I didn't know possible. Both of the transactions were confirmed in the same block. I didn't know a block could include two transactions, one of which spends from the output of the other, but apparently it's possible. Conclusion: If there is a transaction that won't confirm due to a low fee, and you are the intended recipient, then just spend the output to yourself with a fee. Here's the original transaction that was sent in April and confirmed today: https://blockchain.info/tx/17f723bc265ebbeef77b2b081e29985c30b737025ed6a6547842d3c24d023797Here's the second transaction confirmed in the same block (314320) with a fee of 0.0004827: https://blockchain.info/tx/730546e11c79a3399f1fe7f617a7d4ff28edae1c7732180307ca84c2f1e63af2And that's the story of how I got back my two mbits from 3.5 months of limbo. Wow, this is a fantastic discovery with a surprise positive ending to your story! Congratulations on the terrific sleuthing here!!!  Which Bitcoin Wallet software did you use that enabled you to spend the unconfirmed output?? I ask because I know that some clients will not let people spend the unconfirmed output while the original transaction is still pending. |
|
|
|
The transaction finally "fell off" of Blockchain.info, which was the node that was holding onto it and keeping it "stuck". It took 4 days, but I got my coins back! I then sent them again with the appropriate fee and everything is now good. |
|
|
|
I think you confuse with "used by the huge majority" with mainstream use.
Sorry to say, but what you say is just not true.
Just a few pointers: Linux is the most used server OS, by far
Firefox still has over 20% market share
@others, again you confuse two concepts, mainstream and majority.
Even if "the majority" won't directly use Bitcoins, I am sure they will use it without knowing it.
I see what you're saying. You're saying that a few tech-savvy engineers will rally around Bitcoin technology as the backend, and create mainstream products for people who don't even know that Bitcoin is the underlying technology. Let's hope so! This technology is too important to fade away!!! Not tech-savy people but greedy businessmen. Look at circle. They even want to eventually only display USD amounts. You won't even notice that there is BTC being send behind the scenes. Just a frontend like paypal. Yes, of course, the greedy businessmen!!  But... who will maintain the underlying source code?? I hope that Circle plans on spending $$$ to improve and enhance the code! Everyone that owns BTC has some interest in improving BTC, so things will move forward. BTC attracts very very skilled people, don't underestimate this! Greed is one of the best sources of innovation! It is a powerful incentive for extremely advanced companies  I love your optimism!!! I'm going with it!!!! |
|
|
|
I think you confuse with "used by the huge majority" with mainstream use.
Sorry to say, but what you say is just not true.
Just a few pointers: Linux is the most used server OS, by far
Firefox still has over 20% market share
@others, again you confuse two concepts, mainstream and majority.
Even if "the majority" won't directly use Bitcoins, I am sure they will use it without knowing it.
I see what you're saying. You're saying that a few tech-savvy engineers will rally around Bitcoin technology as the backend, and create mainstream products for people who don't even know that Bitcoin is the underlying technology. Let's hope so! This technology is too important to fade away!!! Not tech-savy people but greedy businessmen. Look at circle. They even want to eventually only display USD amounts. You won't even notice that there is BTC being send behind the scenes. Just a frontend like paypal. Yes, of course, the greedy businessmen!! But... who will maintain the underlying source code?? I hope that Circle plans on spending $$$ to improve and enhance the code! |
|
|
|
I think you confuse with "used by the huge majority" with mainstream use.
Sorry to say, but what you say is just not true.
Just a few pointers: Linux is the most used server OS, by far
Firefox still has over 20% market share
@others, again you confuse two concepts, mainstream and majority.
Even if "the majority" won't directly use Bitcoins, I am sure they will use it without knowing it.
I see what you're saying. You're saying that a few tech-savvy engineers will rally around Bitcoin technology as the backend, and create mainstream products for people who don't even know that Bitcoin is the underlying technology. Let's hope so! This technology is too important to fade away!!! |
|
|
|
Also you can always dump your private key and reimport it elsewhere to create a new transaction. This is a chicken-egg problem with your argumentation!
Not true. I reimported my private key to 4 different clients, and none of them let me create a new transaction while my unspent outputs were still unconfirmed. No client that I could find will allow for double spending. Blockchain infos custom send, does. I tried it on blockchain.info and didn't work. Maybe I did it wrong. |
|
|
|
Also you can always dump your private key and reimport it elsewhere to create a new transaction. This is a chicken-egg problem with your argumentation!
Not true. I reimported my private key to 4 different clients, and none of them let me create a new transaction while my unspent outputs were still unconfirmed. No client that I could find will allow for double spending. |
|
|
|
You mean like linux, Firefox, open office, Wordpress, apache , MySQL, BSD, Magento, Filezilla, audacity, gimp, vlc, truecrypt, ubunto, keypass?
I am totally pro-Bitcoin and a huge Bitcoin fan, but it's just not looking so great for mainstream adoption. Here's a great article on how closed-source always beats open-source: http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/07/cliche-open-source-is-secure.html#.U-Kj3Ui9KSNThe technologies you named are great for tech-savvy engineers, but not for the general public: Linux - never made it to mainstream users. The general public uses OS X. Firefox - surpassed in usability and security by Safari and Chrome. Apple's new web services don't even support Firefox anymore. Wordpress and MySQL and Apache - arguably the 3 open source technologies that made it to mainstream users... BUT both are maintained & controlled by corporations (Wordpress and Oracle and Apache). Hence their success. Without these corporations funding the development of those products, they would likely not have taken off. VLC - surpassed handily in functionality & features & ease of use by companies like LogMeIn. VLC stopped evolving years ago. The other technologies you've named: not being used by any mainstream users, unless they were taken over by a corporation (e.g. how Apple used BSD for OS X). I would LOVE for Bitcoin to go mainstream. I'm rooting for Bitcoin. But unless a for-profit corporation starts controlling & writing the code, it's looking increasingly unlikely that Bitcoin will go mainstream. The few developers working on the code can't even agree on a direction for its future! It's taken 5 years to get where we are today, which is... almost no progress.  The Bitcoin Core client hasn't even reached version 1.0. On the other hand, for example, look where Apple has come in 5 years with the iPhone: 5 major iOS releases, hundreds of millions of phones sold, rock solid stable OS with no security flaws, an entire worldwide ecosystem built around it. |
|
|
|
This thread is kinda depressing; this sillyness should have been fixed a year ago.
It's a good wake-up call to how open source software almost never succeeds in the real world. And when open source does have some modicum of success, it is riddled with bugs and flaws and security holes (e.g. Android). It makes me realize that Bitcoin will probably never reach mainstream success. It takes a for-profit corporation to take open source software and turn it into something proprietary that works for the mainstream (like how Apple took Gecko/KHTML and turned it into Safari). |
|
|
|
If you have any change from your transaction, you can send the change to another address that you own with enough fee to cover both transactions and that may get your transaction confirmed.
Can't be done, because the change transaction was also in an unconfirmed state. |
|
|
|
And… great news!! My unconfirmed transaction finally "fell off" of Blockchain.info, and I got my coins returned to me! Now you should spend your uxto. Just send your funds with 0.00001 fee (or 0.0001) Because everybody is able to resubmit your stuck transaction  Ha! Thanks!! I did go ahead and spend my uxto, so I think I'm okay now. Thanks to you and everyone else for your amazing help through these trying times!! All this for $1. But a great learning experience. |
|
|
|
Well on the flip side, banks also wouldn't carry your money from A to B if they didn't get payed for it. So there's that.
And BC.I isn't in theory preventing this transaction from happening; it's actually encouraging it by trying to get it to a miner, which it's failing at for obvious reasons. On the other hand, wallets are preventing you from double spending the transaction because BC.I appears to be persistent on relaying a doomed transaction, so in practice, it is preventing you from moving the funds - even if through another transaction, indirectly.
Rest assured all these 'irrelevant usability issues', as myself and many developers would call them, will be worked out before long.
Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. Makes perfect sense, all the way around. And… great news!! My unconfirmed transaction finally "fell off" of Blockchain.info, and I got my coins returned to me! Only took 4 days! Next time, try writing to blockchain.info support, and see if they can help. They're the retarded ones that still showed the tx, and everyone looks at blockchain.info, all clients do -.- I actually did write blockchain.info support… no response from them.  Ugh. Annoying that everyone looks to them as their master source of information. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks so much. I just installed RCDefaultApp, and it worked like a charm!
|
|
|
|
Well on the flip side, banks also wouldn't carry your money from A to B if they didn't get payed for it. So there's that.
And BC.I isn't in theory preventing this transaction from happening; it's actually encouraging it by trying to get it to a miner, which it's failing at for obvious reasons. On the other hand, wallets are preventing you from double spending the transaction because BC.I appears to be persistent on relaying a doomed transaction, so in practice, it is preventing you from moving the funds - even if through another transaction, indirectly.
Rest assured all these 'irrelevant usability issues', as myself and many developers would call them, will be worked out before long.
Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. Makes perfect sense, all the way around. And… great news!! My unconfirmed transaction finally "fell off" of Blockchain.info, and I got my coins returned to me! Only took 4 days! |
|
|
|
firefox?
click firefox on menu bar
click preferences
click applications icon
click bitcoin in content type column
click use multibit in action column
click use other
click bitcoin-qt in applications folder
click open
close preferences dialog box
A-ha!! This worked!! The tricky thing was that "bitcoin" wasn't listed in Firefox's content type column yesterday when I checked this preference. The trick to making this work is to use Firefox (instead of another browser) while clicking on a "bitcoin:" link, and then Firefox will prompt you with a dialog box, asking you if you'd like to add it to the applications preferences. Now I can edit it within Firefox! Thank you so much for this great tip! Oh, I may have spoken too soon. This definitely works within Firefox. But these settings do not apply to the entire OS, because Safari and Chrome are still opening Multibit. I'm going to try downloading that RCDefaultApp app listed above by another forum member. |
|
|
|
firefox?
click firefox on menu bar
click preferences
click applications icon
click bitcoin in content type column
click use multibit in action column
click use other
click bitcoin-qt in applications folder
click open
close preferences dialog box
A-ha!! This worked!! The tricky thing was that "bitcoin" wasn't listed in Firefox's content type column yesterday when I checked this preference. The trick to making this work is to use Firefox (instead of another browser) while clicking on a "bitcoin:" link, and then Firefox will prompt you with a dialog box, asking you if you'd like to add it to the applications preferences. Now I can edit it within Firefox! Thank you so much for this great tip! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
