I often get a message saying one of my posted has been deleted because they are off-topic or for some other reason.
What's the implication of this and what should I do? What you should do is stop posting useless posts. I can't find a single post in your post history that's worth reading, but you do have countless links to Twitter and Facebook. Sometime I get posts deleted or moved on various boards, and I've learnt to live with it. It happened to me recently, when I answered a question from a thread hijacker. I think in total I've had less than 0.2% of my posts deleted (it did happen a few times when I was a Newbie). |
|
|
|
So, while OP doesn't have 593 BTC to claim... there is 593 "unspent" DOGE... and possibly more  That makes it $9 instead of $9 million. |
|
|
|
I hope these tests can be done with multiple hops to different countries to see if it is still instant? I expect the speed to be in the same range as email: email also passes through several servers, and can be forwarded through other email addresses to reach it's destination. Most of the time it takes less than a second, but sometimes it takes a few minutes to arrive, depending on the rest of the internet. It would be interesting to see how LN performs if some or several nodes are under DDOS-attack, I'm afraid the centralization can be a huge problem if this happens. |
|
|
|
User For_Canal_Coins caught my attention by posting something other than a question on Bitcoin Technical Support. Copy: What is the Lightning Network?
The Lightning Network is a system of smart contracts built on top of the base Bitcoin blockchain that allows for fast, cheap payments directly between two parties.
On a technical level, the Lightning Network is built on payment channels, which were envisioned by Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto in the early days of the project’s development. The basic idea here is that two people put some bitcoin into a multisig address and then sign transactions that alter the amount of bitcoin each party is able to redeem. The payment channel can be closed by either party at any time, and the last-signed transaction with the most up-to-date balances for both parties is the one that will be broadcasted and included in the Bitcoin blockchain.
From a less-technical perspective, the Lightning Network's use of payment channels effectively allows users to transact with each other directly rather than broadcasting their business to the entire world. By tracking their payments between each other on their own, the two parties are able to avoid expensive and time-consuming interactions with the blockchain. If there is some sort of dispute regarding balances on the Lightning Network, either party can send the last valid state signed by both parties to the blockchain, which acts as a sort of automated judge that cannot be corrupted or bribed. In other words, nobody can cheat or fudge the numbers.
With the Lightning Network, users are able to transact with anyone who is connected to their network of payment channels through multiple hops. It’s a network of payment channels rather than a way of enabling faster transactions between only two parties.
The key benefits of the Lightning Network include: drastically lower fees, instant payments (avoiding Bitcoin’s ten minute confirmation times), and the potential for improved privacy since these transactions are not stored in a public ledger forever. Original: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2017/12/28/will-bitcoins-lightning-network-kill-off-altcoins-focused-on-cheap-transactions/#3f5e1a047dab |
|
|
|
no, your transaction was not valid to begin with. it was spending a transaction with currently does not exist which means that transaction was rejected or forgotten so your transaction became invalid.
if this was really 4 years ago, then the only possibility i can think of is that the first transaction had some issue like being non-standard so it didn't confirm. Most of the time I read about problems like this, it turns out to be an altcoin-wallet which is loaded into Bitcoin Core. @UnintelligibleBraille: any chance this was an altcoin-wallet? |
|
|
|
I wrote the below. Yours is more businesslike but I hope if there is any openness there, this should work... (open to comment) In my experience, nobody ever reads, so keeping it short and businesslike can help. On a slightly related subject: have you already claimed your forked Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold and airdropped Bitcore? If not, it'll be worth your time to check. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe someone accelerated it already, or maybe it's just a coincidence.
|
|
|
|
In general, fees are lowest on Sundays. It didn't confirm today, so chances are it won't confirm for at least another week. The transaction has an unconfirmed parent, so that one has to confirm first. Chances are someone will accelerate it, as there are many other people waiting for the same transaction (it has many outputs). |
|
|
|
Your messages to Coinbase aren't very clear. When you started this tread, you wrote this: Last July I transferred some of my BTC from my coinbase wallet to my Blockchain.info wallet. On 1st Jan I attempted to transfer most of it back. Allow me to rewrite your messages (removing irrelevant information), correct me if/where I'm wrong, and feel free to send it to Coinbase:
Dear Coinbase, Thank you for your reply, but unfortunately it's not what I need. I'll try to explain it again: In July 2017, I withdrew 1.75 BTC from Coinbase to my wallet, txid: <txid here>. Last week, on January 1st, I wanted to deposit 1.25 BTC to Coinbase. But, instead of sending it to my own deposit address, I returned it to <address>, which is the address Coinbase used to send me 1.75 BTC last July. I now know this is a mistake, and it can only be fixed by your manual intervention. Can you please credit the 1.25 BTC to my account? <add your signed message again> Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you for your time, timbo555
|
|
|
|
Is there a Bitcoin wallet that supports all three and will allow me to send each coin to a different address?
You already have a wallet that supports Bitcoin: use that existing wallet to send your Bitcoins to a new address (unrelated to this wallet). Do this first, make sure your Bitcoins are all safe and confirmed before importing your private key anywhere else. If it's small amounts of money, Coinomi (closed source on Android) is quite easy to sweep private keys for Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold. While you're at it, you can also claim Bitcore (it got airdropped to Bitcoin addresses) in the same wallet. If it's large amounts, I wouldn't trust Coinomi (or any other Android software for that matter) with it, and secure the Bitcoin Cash by other means. |
|
|
|
Hello there,
Thank you for contacting Coinbase and apologies for the trouble here.
Unfortunately, digital currency transactions using most blockchains are irreversible, meaning once they are sent there is no way to reclaim funds.
If you sent digital currency from your Coinbase account to an email address by accident, your funds will be returned to you in 30 days if the funds remain unclaimed. If the email address has not already been claimed, you could do so to ensure the funds are returned to you.
I hope this information helps. Support 101: Click auto-reply #26 without reading the actual question the customer sent you. Apart from being very shaken by this I think he is missing the point - I've not asked them to reverse but to re-allocate. Also there is no mention here they have read the parts of my post about proving..
Any further thoughts / tips before I respond? At this point I would start with: "please read what I wrote to you", but it might help to stay a bit more friendly to get their support "Thank you for your answer, unfortunately it's not what I asked" might do. What exactly did you write to support? Feel free to leave out any personal information (addresses and signatures). |
|
|
|
Bought at 0.82$ down to 0.63$... Any clues? Anyone??
It went up 40,000% in a year, and you're surprised it drops 20%? |
|
|
|
OK HCP You don't mind if I jump in, do you? 1) I used my recovery phrase in Electrum. It asked if I wanted to encrypt and I did not .. thought that might make the address not work for signature. You can sign a message without encrypting your wallet. It found and downloaded all transactions from B.info. this is impressive but
1a) does this mean my wallet is now in 2 places and could be spent from electrum or b.info ? You've duplicated your wallet, and can access your funds from both blockchain.info as well as your local Electrum. 1b) I'm worried I did not encrypt as above - how can / should I resolve this... perhaps now delete the electrum wallet ? You can still set a password in Electrum. 2) with all transactions I was able to find the -1.25 BTC one It showed in details
b) an input address ... this matched one of the imported wallet addresses so I presume THIS is the one I sent from and put this in the signature address box. Correct. c)2 outputs... the one I sent to (general coinbase unallocated to me... had 1250 against it )... and one in yellow with the remaining balance of BTC (499 or 0.5) That's your own change address, also correct. I updated the support ticket with a message and the signature of the address.
So... does this make sense / did I do right / any comments esp re the import security in 1 above ? I think you did everything correct. Technically, each time you import a private key (or seed), you reduce the security a bit. As always, it mainly depends on how secure your computer is, if it's compromised, neither one (online or local wallet) is safe. HCP - I reiterate you have been great and I want to reward this if/when I get my BTC back HCP is very resourceful, I've noticed that before  |
|
|
|
How about "millibits". That's short. It's rather catchy, and (at least to someone that speaks english with a Chicago accent) it rolls of the tongue nicely. It sounds good, but "bits" is already in use for "100 Satoshis". That makes 1 millibit 0.000000001 BTC. Kilobits could actually work, it has the the same as millibitcoin, but sounds better. |
|
|
|
I propose a hardfork, 1 BTC (old) = 1000 BTC (new)  I propose to just change the units in your wallet: 1 BTC now = 1000 mBTC now. And that is exactly what I've been doing since I started using Bitcoin (almost 3 years ago). When I started, one base unit was worth $0.20, now it's $16.40. I find it much more convenient to have units worth about the same as a dollar/euro, but we can't keep forking Bitcoin every time it goes up in value. Some shitforks are already doing this, but that doesn't make it Bitcoin. The only thing I don't like, is how "millibitcoin" sounds when I say it out loud. It's too long and not nearly as catchy as "Bitcoin". During my time as a Mod at Rollin.io, I've seen many people ask questions like: "how many mBTC is a BTC?". I don't know if they're just dumb, uneducated, or used to imperial units, as to me it's just common sense to use SI-units. Lets call the split version "millibitcoin", or we can use a slang name for it like "millies". That still doesn't sound right to me. This made me laugh because he actually has a point.. I've spoken to someone complaining about how the barrier to entry for Bitcoin was so high (they legitimately thought they had to buy "a Bitcoin" to invest). There have been a number of other conversations I've had with people wondering how people can keep buying Bitcoin when they cost so much to buy. As irrational as it is, I've heard it from several people too: "I'll buy some Verge, just for fun, because it's so cheap". People who say this don't realize the total supply is 1000 times bigger than with Bitcoin. Of course it's not rational, but most people aren't rational when it comes to money. The system already had a 1000:1 split and then another 1000:1 split after that. People just aren't aware of it yet, and they aren't familliar with the new naming convention for the split amounts. I think leopard2's point is that all exchanges call it "Bitcoin", they don't list smaller units than that. The Byteball-thread has a lot of discussion about changing the unit from GBYTE ($870) to MBYTE ($0.87). I used to think this doesn't matter, but I've come to realize it does matter. Changing the units in my own wallet doesn't change how it's listed and traded. On the other hand, how nice is it that 1 Bitcoin has a very large value, and that value is (most of the time) going up? An average car: 2 Bitcoins! Maybe somewhere in the future we can say the same about a house: just 2 Bitcoins! That makes Bitcoins more like gold bars: everybody knows a gold bar is expensive, and everybody knows you can buy gold in smaller portions than big bars. |
|
|
|
Can you even call it Bitcoin if they never go on-chain?
Why not? Although philosophical, it doesn't feel right. Users will have to periodically close/settle LN channels for a variety of reasons even if fees are high. If participants of LN channels start to act maliciously, channels will be forced to close, when channels have nearly all of the balances on one side, the other side will want to close the channel to reduce risk Isn't "closing channels" very easy to abuse? Say a LN hub pays me 0.0000001 Bitcoin, if I understand correctly I can close that channel whenever I want. I won't have enough funds to pay the fee, but the hub does. Does this mean the hub has to pay many times more than what it paid me in fees? Or is there a safeguard in place that I don't know about? If it is like I just described, a spam attack can easily bankrupt LN hubs. |
|
|
|
I think some of these threads really tell you the age of users signing up here and dozens of them are created every day and are immediately swarmed by shitposters frothing at another thread they can easily post in. Can't you use this as a honey pot for spammers? Let a thread be for a while, then have a look at the recent posts of everybody who posted in that thread, and ban like 98% of them? It would probably be possible to use a bot: all accounts with more than 5 out of their first 10 posts on those boards are very likely insubstantial posters. I'm afraid restricting them from these sections just moves their spam to other boards. Other than that, I am in favour of making off-topic and politics boards only accessible to high-ranking members. I'd love to see them all banned before they level up and turn to different sections of the forum, but I also expect they'll just create 10 other accounts after the first ones are banned. Off-topic has a sticky thread: Low quality topics and posts are not allowed: Off topic is a section for any other topics that do not fit into any other sub, however, it is not a subforum for account farmers to lazily spam their way through the ranks and doing so will no longer be tolerated. If you are caught spamming unsubstantial posts just to farm or rank up your account your account(s) will be immediately permabanned without warning.
~
If all your posts are short and spammy and it is clear you are only making them for either signature payment or to farm then you will still be banned. Is this currently being enforced? I see so many users with only worthless posts in these sections and the Altcoin threads. I support that proposal but don’t you think that wouldn’t be a problem if sig. campaigns managers didn’t hire such bullshit posters? Would it be an option to only allow signature campaigns to pay in Bitcoin (or also altcoins with an established value), and ban all campaigns that pay in "tokens"? Most spam comes from the ICO and bounty hunters who have hundreds of spammers in their campaign.
I barely post in off-topic, and try to stay away from politics, but when I check the post history from someone who posts rubbish, I often end up in those threads filled with garbage posts. I've been reporting so many posts lately that I run into the "only once every 4 seconds"-limit all the time, the amount of spam is endless! |
|
|
|
Newbie Stickist001 joins the club of copy/pasters: Copy: What is Bitcoin worth today?
Bitcoin, on January 5, 2018, was worth $14,953.99 (£11,016.84) just after 8am.
The currency has dipped slightly since yesterday, when it closed at $14,991.16 (£11,062.43).
This comes months after its price exceeded the value of an ounce of gold for the first time – then about £940.
But investors are worried by the currency's volatile nature and the market's inability to cope with sudden shifts in demand.
An eBay executive told Yahoo Finance the tech giant is "seriously considering" accepting bitcoin payments after its recent success.
Although Scott Cutlor, senior vice president of eBay Americas said they're "not quite there yet", his consideration indicates how fast the cryptocurrency is permeating the mainstream.
Original: https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/5069370/bitcoin-price-usd-gbp-latest-news-cryptocurrency-january-5/ |
|
|
|
if Lightning is successful enough then 500 bits could be economic to send on-chain again. I highly doubt that. If 10 million people make only one on-chain transaction per month, 1 MB blocks are full already. Your math is right. Your figures are wrong: 1MB is not the blocksize any longer. I thought about that, but ignored it: even if you do the math with 4 MB blocks, it's just 4 times more users or 4 times more transactions. And your logic is wrong too. When millions of transactions per day are being made over Lightning, the price users are willing to pay on-chain is going to be less. Why wait minutes or hours when most transactions can be made in less than a second?
That would mean many users would never settle their transactions on-chain anymore. That means the small amounts they have in their future Lightning Wallet have the potential to be settled on-chain, but they never do it because it's easier/cheaper not to? Can you even call it Bitcoin if they never go on-chain? |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin transactions don't have a color, but if you saw this on blockchain.info's block explorer, it means unconfirmed (input).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
