I am using the cli and I do not see any way to get this recommended number and never even knew that it existed.
You get the recommended fee by not overriding it with -paytxfee or settxfee. By default, Bitcoin Core will automatically set a fee to try to ensure your transaction will probably confirm within the next 2 blocks; the number of blocks can be changed with the -txconfirmtarget option. You can query the current fee estimate at any time with the estimatefee n command, where n is the desired confirmation time in blocks (this fee is per kb). Also, if Bitcoin can't handle micro-transactions then it cannot scale. Let's hope that isn't the case.
That statement makes no sense. Microtransactions constitute very low volume, and current high-volume transaction networks do not handle microtransactions, almost by definition. In any case, hoping for a thing will not make it so. |
|
|
|
At the bare minimum we need a mechanism to determine what fee is necessary to propagate a transaction.
Why? The minimum fee to relay a transaction is far less than the minimum fee to confirm a transaction in a reasonable period of time, and Bitcoin Core already calculates the latter automatically, which is all real users care about. Anyone who overrides this recommendation to pay the absolute minimum should "be aware that this can end up in a never confirming transaction" to quote the warning given when you attempt to do this. Bitcoin is not, never has been, and never will be suitable for microtransactions, nor was it designed or intended to be. |
|
|
|
Well the timestamp will be modified every time you run core since the program does access the file and can modify it.
It doesn't modify historical block files and certainly doesn't truncate them. Even if it did, the file was created after that date, from a backup made before that date. |
|
|
|
|
30. Nb3, giving up the exchange to prevent 30... Nd4 31... Nf3+.
|
|
|
|
|
Update: It happened again, this time with blk00000.dat. Timestamp 2015-09-09 11:01:51 UTC. My first thought was maybe something did happen on that date, but then I remembered that I had just restored this file from a backup I made way back in July. There's no possible way it could have really been modified on September 9. What the fuck's going on here? (No, the backup is not corrupt - I restored it again and it's perfectly fine.)
|
|
|
|
|
29. cxb5 is best. 29. Qe1 loses a whole piece instead of just the exchange.
1 vote Qe1 (dre1982)
4 votes cxb5 (languagehasmeaning, boolberry, XMRpromotions, Foxpup)
|
|
|
|
|
28. f3.
2 votes Bxe4 (hermesesus, boolberry)
2 votes f3 (vite, Foxpup)
|
|
|
|
R on d 1 gets taken by rook on a1,
That's not a legal move. The rook on a1 is blocked by the knight on c1. but he's not going to play that,
Yes, he is. He's not going to pass up an opportunity to win the queen for nothing. As to Trolls, you've already driven one person away (which was documented previously) and have made unsavory remarks about myself, so yeh, if you the Troll would like to leave, by all means do so.
While ObscureBean may mean no offense, I do mean offense. Your chess playing is unbelievably bad, but there's nothing wrong with that - some people don't know how to play chess, or just plain suck at it, and that's okay. What's not okay is your refusal to revise or retract your suggested move when it is pointed out how unbelievably bad they are. You're sabotaging the game and everyone who's taking the game seriously is right to call you out for doing so. |
|
|
|
27. Queen to f1 please,
Loses the queen for nothing after 27... Rd1. An alternate play would be
27. Qg4
28. Be5
29. Qg7 Check Mate...
You do realise that Black makes some moves in the meantime, right? Can we vote to ban obvious trolls from casting future votes? |
|
|
|
|
Playboy's right, though. Nobody buys these magazines "for the pictures" these days, and anyone who says they do is hiding something (in this age of anti-intellectualism, they're probably hiding the fact that they're literate). Publishers who favour pretty pictures over editorial standards tend to go out of business.
|
|
|
|
It already has failed for many reasons.
The protocol doesn't even scale anywhere near the adoption level that would be required to get to 10k usd
I wouldn't have believed it, but the Opposite Oracle has spoken. This rally is real and will take us to $10,000. Everyone, get your cheap coins while they last!  |
|
|
|
Oh, so you can act like an adult if you try? I guess I was wrong. There's no way in selling a property which you dont own,
Actually, there is. OP, you need to be appointed conservatorship of your mother's estate, by proving to a judge that she's mentally unfit to manage her own financial affairs (you'll need her psychiatrist to testify to her mental state). Go talk to a lawyer. |
|
|
|
|
26. Qg4 is our best chance to stay in the game.
3 votes Qg4 (XMRpromotions, languagehasmeaning, Foxpup)
1 vote Bf1 (dre1982)
|
|
|
|
I believe Taras' vote has been overlooked... (ten messages back - this is message 616 that was message 606) 24. Qd1
That was the previous move. The current move is move 25. I vote for Nc1. (b3 blunders away at least 2 pawns, by the way, which is why nobody's taking it seriously.) b3 - 1 vote (Timelord2067) Nc1 - 6 votes (XMRpromotions, jjacob, languagehasmeaning, boolberry, lottery248, Foxpup) |
|
|
|
Some sites block Tor (which is easy to do, since the IP addresses of exit nodes are public), and there's not much you can do about it besides use a VPN. You are using TOR yet you don't know why these things happens? LOL. Man, TOR is slow for a reason you should've know why before accessing it. Are you even sure of what you are doing in there?
Anyway some onion sites will not load at some time, try accessing it again some other time. In my case there is indeed a lot of onion sites that doesn't load but eventually from a certain time, they does.
sorry, but if you know why these certain pages does not load, can you enlighten me? She can't because she doesn't. She's only posting because she gets paid to, and didn't even bother to read your question, which has nothing whatsoever to do with onion sites or Tor being slow. |
|
|
|
|
That knight's getting up to no good. We should trade it off with 23. Nxd7.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
