Please why my balance is pending ?
Is it fully synced? |
|
|
|
Is there a ways to know which btc address is from?
Like I can see some btc address that starts with 1 and sometimes its from blockchain but I'm not really sure. how do i know its from any hard wallet such as multibit or bitcoincore. some of them also starts with 1. they may be even from exchange sites.
If you know how the wallet, e.g. handles change or selects inputs you can make an educated guess. You can never be sure though. Well, unless its bc.i. They state on their HP if they relayed a TX first. That could also mean someone used their site to push a TX created elsewhere, but Id says thats uncommon. You could also tell (2013) which were probably using an Android wallet due to an Android prng bug. It also wasn't a guarantee, but at the time was highly likely. See: https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-08-11-androidIn general without a problem in the wallet, it should be impossible to tell where the address is generated from the address itself. As shorena says, you can make educated guesses with other metrics. |
|
|
|
i have his probleme in ubuntu
root@ubuntu:~/learncoin/src$ make -f makefile.unix USE_UPNP=-
/bin/sh ../share/genbuild.sh obj/build.h
fatal: bad default revision 'HEAD'
root@ubuntu:~/learncoin/src$
This looks like an alt-coin, you should try asking in that alt-coin forum. Good luck! |
|
|
|
I searched my mac's hard drive, desktop and every other nook of my computer for debug.log, peers.dat and all of the other files named in this thread. Nothing. Unreal.
What's going on?
Did you try going to that location using the Go menu in Finder? https://support.apple.com/kb/PH19069?locale=en_USSo have you "searched" as in used the search function or "searched" as in gone to that directory and looked it it as above or using the Terminal? |
|
|
|
Trouble is, the transaction has completed so where would the money go?
Are you sure the transaction was sent? Can you provide the transaction ID for said transaction? Most wallets check, if the address they are sending to is a "valid" one, and wouldn't let you send to a 69 char string. Also, what was the address you tried to send the coins from? Even if the wallet would not check, the blockchain should not accept the transaction anyways, should it? It shouldn't be accepted by the wallet or the network. Without a transaction ID, or the address, I have a very difficult time believing it. What wallet was used? Please post the transaction ID and address (NOT the private key of course). |
|
|
|
I feel like a very dumb person right now. I saved the raw transaction form with the address : 1TtxVxWQwXCcdrbzXFQZGnrBP8oSVjYwP that I used previously. And today I wanted to send 0.0348 to my exchange account, but I forgot to change the receiver address, and now I lost these coins for ever as I deleted that wallet file. I am glad I made this mistake with a small amount right now, and not later with a large amount. I know what I did wrong now. I removed the address from the form and changed it to "INSERT RECEIVE ADDRESS HERE''. If I again forget to add the right receiving address, it won't send the coins to the wrong address anymore.  I presume you don't have an old backup somewhere? |
|
|
|
I sent a small amount of BTC without fee. It's been over 30 mins and I see no confirmations yet.
What are my options now?
I'ts been a while (2 years i think) since I used BTC for many things and now I started using it again. I used to send funds from my qt wallet, but don't use that anymore. Is qt wallet better for transactions? what's the difference between using qt wallet and using online wallets, please share links with me, will be very helpful to get back on track.
You didn't say what wallet or service you had used to send the BTC. Do you have a tx id? |
|
|
|
HI Guys
I made a couple of cash outs more than a week ago and still see nothing in my wallet. Can you please assist.
Stefan
#1 which wallet/service? #2 from where to where di you send? #3 tx id? Hi I'm using Blockchain "MY Wallet" I transferred bitcoins from BITFactory to My Wallet My Wallet address is 1FKez51GxTVNtSBdBG9bsKaynCfP6EyEW2 Stefan Since you are talking about BITFactory and assuming you are talking about blockchain.INFO (vs some other blockchain service or the blockchain), you should talk to BITFactory technical support. If you tried to withdraw from them, did they give you a transaction ID? You also might try asking in the correct thread. |
|
|
|
I thought so, too ... but after all my wallet.dat was rewritten with no keys inside. I don't know why I assume I made some mistake, but just want to ask if someone knew more.
Hopefully you have a backup (or 2). If it is something that is reproducible, that could be a bug. I haven't seen other reports of it though. |
|
|
|
|
What version of Bitcoin Core are you using? In most cases letting it sync is faster compared to bootstrap.dat since 0.10.x.
As far as "unpacking bootstrap.dat", do you mean you left it compressed?
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I have huge issue because must share my bitcoin blockchain through different users.
Just finished downloading all data on one user and to avoid downloading it again wanted to share it with different user (just need it very fast - today).
To share blockchain used applications folder (I'm OS X user) and copied all data to place where bitcoin should download files but before it started downloading (made backup before run wallet). Strange thing is that after creating bootstrap file there is nothing happen to import anything..
More, after I deleted bitcoin file from downloading location after running bitcoin wallet its running and downloading files but probably somewhere else? Don't know where because nothing was created after deleting my copied file with bootstrap.. That's true that I changed location of files folder on main user to documents/bitcoin but it's also not downloading it there as second user.
Really must to solve it in next hours otherwise have some problems.. Could u help me somehow import all data from first user to second user, so there is no reason to download all files again? Strongly appreciate.
A few questions: 1. You are not actually asking about sharing a *wallet* between users, just the block chain, correct regardless of the subject? (Bitcoin Core, presumably) 2. Are you intending to have both users running Bitcoin Core simultaneously? 3. Are you talking about merely copying the downloaded data with the second user or actually sharing the downloaded block chain at the same time? A few notes: 1. If you used a bootstrap file, that is slower than actually letting it sync. At least since 0.10.x. 2. If you copy (not move) the bitcoin folder to the new user and just let Bitcoin Core run there, that can save time. You won't be sharing the wallet or the block chain between users. The default data directory on OS X is here: ~/Library/Application Support/Bitcoin/ See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Data_directory#MacSo you should be able to copy that directory to the other user. How did you change where Bitcoin Core is storing its files? Have you checked to see if it is downloading to the default location? |
|
|
|
Hi.
My mobile wallet always tells me that using faucets makes my wallet app slower.
Is there a way to reverse this effect when it happens? And how does it even effect the wallet?
What wallet? I could depend on the implementation. Presumably, you could consolidate all the inputs through a transaction, but without knowing which wallet etc, it is hard to say for sure. |
|
|
|
As far as what Luke said, I know what he said and had seen it previously, but it seems clear his meaning was half the hash rate, not half the miners since that metric is meaningless. "Half the miners" might control 1% of the hash power or 90% depending on who is included in the 50%group. He wasn't be precise, but thought most people would understand his meaning. I was just giving approximate numbers which given the immense search space involved become even closer to the approximation. For all intents and purposes the 0.005% difference is meaningless in these numbers and is much smaller in reality so approximations are fine: E.g. A 2^64 or 2^256 sided die even with 10000 miners/players doing a single roll. Even if there were 1 million miners doing a single roll, it wouldn't change the math significantly. Try taking your dice the other way, instead of making them smaller, make them much, much, much, much larger and hopefully you will understand where the error is. Luke Jr is talking about half the hash rate dropping off the network, not necessarily half the miners.
Luke Jr stated: "For example, if 50% of miners dropped off the network, blocks would be every 20 minutes on average...". The link to his statement online is my previous post above. If you have a 1000 sided die, and 10 players, look at the stats for that to roll a 1 on the first try? 1/100
If you have a 1000 sided die and 10 players, the odds of one rolling a 1 on the first try is: 1 - ((999/1000)^10) = ~0.9955% it is not 1/100 which is equal to 1%. Consider you had a 3 sided die and 2 players, what are the odds that at least one throws a 1 on the first try? The answer is: 1 - ((2/3)^2) To understand this, let's look at the possible combinations: [player 1's throw, player 2's throw] [1, 1] [1, 2] [1, 3] [2, 1] [2, 2] [2, 3] [3, 1] [3, 2] [3, 3] in 5 cases, at least one of the players threw a 1. There are 9 possible combinations of results. So, there is a 5/9 chance of a player throwing a 1 on the first throw which is not 2/3 (that would be 4/9) and 1 - ((2/3)^2) = 5/9 |
|
|
|
There shouldn't be many hard forks. The reversion to a larger block size and a new opcode for side chains are two that will likely occur. Perhaps re-enabling some of the other opcodes that are disabled. After that, the need for hard forks should be extremely rare. Look at IPv4 vs IPv6 or changes to TCP/IP, DNS, SMTP etc. Changes are few and far between for good reason. For bitcoin, the need for changes should be similarly rare and to make matters worse carry systemic, catastrophic risk to all of bitcoin. It is like trying to swap out an engine on an airplane while cruising at 30000 feet.
By the design of bitcoin changes should be extremely rare or only needed in the event of a catastrophe. And changes at the whim of a simple majority could easily cause it to morph into a fiat type system which would result in the destruction of bitcoin.
Consequently making voting easier and more common is a bad idea. Bitcoin isn't a democracy, it should be a dictatorship of math and protocol. Or perhaps if you prefer, the protocol is the Constitution and it should be rarely, if ever, changed. The option is that if someone wants a change, just create a new protocol/Constitution. Every change to the protocol creates an alt-coin. Anyone can change the protocol, create this alt-coin and convince people to switch.
I`m not a technical expert but I dont think you need any hardfork of the protocol to implement my idea. You only need to code this feature inside the client. No one said you did need a hard fork for the the idea. In fact, you don't even need to implement your idea in a client, just with RPC commands - it is easy enough that shouldn't be in the Bitcoin Core. A lightweight client would be better otherwise you'd have to download the entire block chain to vote. Perhaps the assumption that you were proposing that people vote on forking changes bitcoin was wrong, but the follow-up discussion seemed to tend towards using this voting mechanism to vote on changes to bitcoin itself vs on who should win an US/EU election. ;-) |
|
|
|
...
What are the odds a player will get a 6 in the first 5 seconds (first roll)?
1 - ((5/6)^20) = ~97%
Now, let's say we lose half the players. What are the odds a player will get a 6 in the first 5 seconds (first roll)?
1 - ((5/6)^10) = ~84%
...
It is true that miners dropping off the network does increase the time, on average, it takes to solve blocks without any change in difficultly. But with a reasonable number of miners and assuming the 50% of miners who may drop out isn't just the group of fastest miners, even half the miners dropping out would not change the time it takes to solve blocks in any dramatic way.
Luke Jr is talking about half the hash rate dropping off the network, not necessarily half the miners. Regarding the statistics that is right for the first roll when you have more players than numbers, but we're not talking one roll in a certain period of time with a small search space. E.g. we don't have more players than search space. If you have a 1000 sided die, and 10 players, look at the stats for that to roll a 1 on the first try? 1/100 If you have a 1000 sided die, and 5 players, look at the stats for that to roll a 1 on the first try? 1/200 Then calculate the expected number of rolls until you get a 1 for each. The impact of cutting the number of players/hash rate in half should be obvious. You should review what knightdk says: Your fundamental assumptions are wrong.
First of all there is empirical evidence which directly relates the network hashrate to the difficulty. As the hashrate has increased so has the difficulty and vice versa.
Secondly, you have the wrong assumption that blocks will be found by a single pool every ten minutes on average. That is the wrong assumption.
There are 2^256 - 1 possible solutions. A pool will only search through 2^64 hashes for each set of transactions that it includes in a block. Note that each pool will have a different transaction set due to choosing different transaction and setting different coinbase script text.
For the sake of simplicity let's assume that each pool has the same hashrate and that there are 10 pools (pools can also be interchanged with individual miners). In, say, 1 hashes, 10*2^64 hashes will be searched, way short of the 2^256 - 1 possible hashes. After 10 minutes, 100*2*64 hashes will be searched. With whatever difficulty is set, within that set of hashes, there will be at least 1 block solution (actually there will probably 1 solution).
Now if there are suddenly 5 pools but the difficulty stays the same, 100*2^64 hashes will need to be searched but only 50*2^64 hashes will be searched. That means there are 50*2^64 hashes that haven't be searched yet. In order to have a high probability of having found the block, each pool will have to search another (1/5)*2^64 hashes which will take an extra (1/5)*(10-5)=10 minutes to search the remaining space to find the block.
tl;dr you are assuming that pools are searching from the same place, but they don't and all start and search different areas of the hash space.
|
|
|
|
Its not a democracy and it should never be. We need intellectual specialists on deciding the best for bitcoin not uneducated dumbasses that know nothing about it.
You're wrong! Why else would people be voting for such a wonderful and intelligent man such as Trump in the US if democracy wasn't working 
</sarcasm> If the masses were making decisions Bitcoin would most likely self destruct within a very short amount of time. I also like the idea of voting and maybe if there are 2 or more options, generate needed adresses to vote into. From the winner devs get paid, loosers get back all. Win Win. Sounds good?
So basically you're saying that if I vote and my opinion "passes" I lose all my money? I don't see people voting in such a system. Did I misunderstand something? "Let's vote your coins out of your balance" Or "Let's change the mining algo so that every newbies gets 100 free bitcoins"
It sounds very dumb for bitcoin, yet these folks do the same thing in the fiat economy under democracy and socialism. I`m starting to think that democracy itself was a huge mistake. There shouldn't be many hard forks. The reversion to a larger block size and a new opcode for side chains are two that will likely occur. Perhaps re-enabling some of the other opcodes that are disabled. After that, the need for hard forks should be extremely rare. Look at IPv4 vs IPv6 or changes to TCP/IP, DNS, SMTP etc. Changes are few and far between for good reason. For bitcoin, the need for changes should be similarly rare and to make matters worse carry systemic, catastrophic risk to all of bitcoin. It is like trying to swap out an engine on an airplane while cruising at 30000 feet. By the design of bitcoin changes should be extremely rare or only needed in the event of a catastrophe. And changes at the whim of a simple majority could easily cause it to morph into a fiat type system which would result in the destruction of bitcoin. Consequently making voting easier and more common is a bad idea. Bitcoin isn't a democracy, it should be a dictatorship of math and protocol. Or perhaps if you prefer, the protocol is the Constitution and it should be rarely, if ever, changed. The option is that if someone wants a change, just create a new protocol/Constitution. Every change to the protocol creates an alt-coin. Anyone can change the protocol, create this alt-coin and convince people to switch. |
|
|
|
So i assume right, that the bitcoin core deleted the wallet.dat, that was renamed from .bak before it creates new wallet.dat?
Or where did it went, i still hope that this file is somewhere, i reconstructed the situation again and again to understand on my other computer.
so, can i use data recovery programms or should i use a company?
Well with everything you write on the disk or that gets written in the background on the disk the chance that the data you are missing is overwritten increases. Since we are talking about a significant amount of coins here and a complex issue I suggest a company. And he should turn off the computer to stop writing to the drive to maximize the chance of salvaging the wallet.dat. In short, do NOT do anything on the computer any more if you want the best chance to save the wallet. |
|
|
|
Have you taken a look at this in addition to the links you provided? ( https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-examples#regtest-mode) As you mentioned both regtest and testnet, do you know which you are going to use? Depending on what the experiments are and whether you are using regtest or testnet, you may not need much in the way of requirements for with regtest or testnet itself. It is difficult to give server advice without knowing a bit more, such as what you are looking at experimenting with, OS to be used (Linux/Windows/Mac...), which way you are going to do the testing etc. But probably 2GB of RAM would be sufficient and 4GB RAM should be fine. Nothing high end for 2016. I doubt it would be a special case, no. |
|
|
|
ok just finished running every diagnostic tool I can find on hiren boot CD (damn that took long). RAM and CPU are ok. found some error on disks but was quickly fixed. core still crashes. Following up from knightdk how much memory do you have on the system? Is this Windows XP Professional or not? A guess is that you are running a 32 bit version of Windows XP and you may just be running out of memory.
professional 32bit, yes. if by memory you mean RAM, my RAM is 2GB and I've tried terminating every unneeded processes before starting core. I'll try installing older versions and see if they works. ====================================================== version 0.11.1 works. I'll just use this until I find a solution. My suspicion is that 2GB RAM (memory) is not nearly enough. You will likely have better luck with 4GB (or even better, a 64 bit system with even more memory/swap). Glad 0.11.1 is an interim solution. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
