AFAIK no wallet allows this, but most local clients can be modified to forget the 1st transaction. Since it does not know about it, there is no reason for the wallet to lock the funds.
This guy seems to be expert scammer. He knows a lot about how can the system be misused. Its not that difficult, I probably have given the advice how to double spend a TX several times myself. A simple google search on the forum will easily result in several step by step guides how to do it. Its often used to create the same TX (sending the coins to the same person), but with a higher fee. As long as you dont start accepting unconfirmed transactions you dont have to worry about it. Double spends are currently difficult, but they might get easier with the next version of bitcoin core (0.12). I still have to read more about it though. |
|
|
|
Can you please explain what exactly it mean? ~PayPal-Trader~ created a different TX spending the same coins but paying a higher fee. That TX was confirmed, thus the TX sending coins to you is now invalid, as well as the other TX following it. ~PayPal-Trader~ had several TX after yours that used the change from yours. I would not be surprised if they took the opportunity to scam someone else with this. Some of the later even had high fees, suggesting a quick confirmation. You however will not receive the coins and will need to contact coinbase so the TX does not show in your account. What kind of shitty wallet is this which allows same coins to be spent twice. I have contacted coinbase https://community.coinbase.com/t/received-bitcoin-in-pending-since-more-than-2-days/9636 and now waiting for their reply. I see Coinbase is way better here as I do not have option of setting fee, they decide it themselves. I can not spend the coins unless they are confirmed I cannot send the same coin again to anyone once they leave my wallet. AFAIK no wallet allows this, but most local clients can be modified to forget the 1st transaction. Since it does not know about it, there is no reason for the wallet to lock the funds. |
|
|
|
Can you please explain what exactly it mean? ~PayPal-Trader~ created a different TX spending the same coins but paying a higher fee. That TX was confirmed, thus the TX sending coins to you is now invalid, as well as the other TX following it. ~PayPal-Trader~ had several TX after yours that used the change from yours. I would not be surprised if they took the opportunity to scam someone else with this. Some of the later even had high fees, suggesting a quick confirmation. You however will not receive the coins and will need to contact coinbase so the TX does not show in your account. |
|
|
|
|
Not going to happen, people talk about the latest news whether you like it or not. It will be over next week (or in 2-3 w) anyway, so who cares.
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you need to pay a larger fee due to the size of your transaction.
Yes, any idea what that turns out to be? Where could I find that documentation? Looks like the API does not allow for a fee estimation, so you have to pull it from a different source. There is a homepage that suggests fees, but I constantly forget the URL. Right now core suggests: targetblock fee per kb Time: 18:56:53,65
1 0.00044343
2 0.00022275
3 0.00018866
4 0.00016587
5 0.00015035
6 0.00013897
7 0.00013897
8 0.00013897
9 0.00013897
10 0.00013897
11 0.00013897
12 0.00012507
13 0.00012507
14 0.00012507
15 0.00011411
16 0.00011411
17 0.00011411
18 0.00011411
19 0.00011411
20 0.00011411
21 0.00011411
22 0.00011411
23 0.00011411
24 0.00010502
25 0.00010502
|
|
|
|
Would Bitcoin nodes be downloading and upload a lot more?
If the new maximum block size was reached, then yes, nodes would be downloading and uploading more. The blockchain's size would grow faster and it would require even more disk space. Would we lose a lot of full nodes because of the higher BW and memory requirements?
Probably. After reading the 0.12 patch notes I see no higher memory requirements. The memory imprint is already small, the biggest part are the transactions, which will be less with bigger blocks as more get confirmed. At least for a while. IF memory was meant as = disk space, then yes. |
|
|
|
if I send 1 bitcoin to my friend and I paid 20,000 satosi for the transaction who gets the transaction fees?  The miners. They get the block reward + all the transaction fees I think. Yes the transaction charge goes to the Miners who are the base for the proper functioning of this forum. Nope. Forums like this run just fine without the existance of bitcoin or miners. One more reason why this miners were given the transaction charge is they are the uninterrupted power suppliers for Systems involved in transaction.
Power suppliers? What do you mean by that, it sounds like miners generate electricity and Im pretty sure you picked up enough to understand this is utter nonsense. |
|
|
|
What minimum transaction fees needed to transfer 1 BTC ?
0, given enough priority. How is a kb calculated?
a kb is 1000 bytes, but I suspect your question is "how is the size of a transaction calculated". That answer is a little more complex. Transactions have inputs (previously received transactions you now use) and outputs (bitcoins you send to someone else). Most wallets do not allow you to see the number of inputs available or even select them yourself, so you probably have no influence on the number of inputs. The size of the TX = 180b*inputs + 32b*outputs +/- 1*inputs for uncompressed keys The size of the TX = 134b*inputs + 32b*outputs +/- 1*inputs for compressed keys |
|
|
|
Hi Shorena,
Thanks for the reply. So even if I were to make changes offline and re-import to a new wallet online, the changes would not be synced?
You cant do the change offline. The transaction is known to several thousand nodes in the network. You can take your private key to an offline machine, but that does not change the transactions know to the nodes online. If those coins are not needed for you immediately, or you those transactions are for just testing purpose, then leave it as is. It will be confirmed when pools don't get paid transactions. However, if you want to make it spendable immediately then you need to go with the RBF concept of double spending. Or use CPFP method to send the transaction with a fee. My guess you just leave it as it is. It will be confirmed later without a double spend issue.
RBF (replace by fee) is not implemented yet. No node that knows about the frist TX (A) will relay the second (B) competing TX. Even if RBF would already be implemented, the TX A would have to be made in a specific way before broadcasting to allow RBF at all. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Does it mean that at that time there was no unconfirmed transaction.
Certainly not. |
|
|
|
Thanks. Sounds very good for me esp. in terms of running a node on a server with limited resources. |
|
|
|
Which brings us back to the question which of the following is the preferred action.
If the network forgets about the transaction and the scammer has not lost anything
-OR-
If the transaction is rebroadcasted until it is confirmed even though it might take a few weeks.
How can he make a mistake all of a sudden when he had already confirmed outbound transactions with 0.0001 BTC fee? For example --- https://blockchain.info/tx/6e17e39d4bf8a0c431c5f762ed140acb883b056609ee880938e3f886992f68f5Prolly none other than a scam attempt IMHO. After all anyone that knows about the transaction has the power to remind the network about it.
That's why I already advised op not to rebroadcast it because he has not sent him anything on Skrill and the transaction will obviously get cancelled if no reminder is attempted on the network. Maybe I wasnt clear enough. ~PayPal-Trader~ scammed 0.1457 BTC. Lets assume you are sardasa here. The TX would give you 0.1163 btc from the scammer. Would you return the 0.1163 btc to the scammer or the victim of one of their scams? |
|
|
|
Hallo,
nach etwas längerer Zeit (ca. ein Monat), wollte ich mein Electrum Wallet wiederherstellen.
Damals habe ich den phrase direkt in eine word Datei kopiert, also muss er richtig sein. Er besteht aus 13 Wörtern.
Nun ja, wenn ich ihn eingebe bleibt der Weiter Button einfach grau, also ich kann ihn nicht anklicken.
Hat jemand eine Ahnung woran das liegt?
Danke im Vorraus.
LG Arnold
Hat die Autokorrektur zugeschlagen? |
|
|
|
-snip- Poor scam attempt.  Which brings us back to the question which of the following is the preferred action. If the network forgets about the transaction and the scammer has not lost anything -OR- If the transaction is rebroadcasted until it is confirmed even though it might take a few weeks. After all anyone that knows about the transaction has the power to remind the network about it. |
|
|
|
Not true. Which part? Everything you said corresponds with something I said. The incoming connections part, not being a full node, and pruning not being helpful in the short term. But as it stands with 0.11 currently right now.. It does not relay blocks that was the point? We were saying it hopefully will in 0.12 A pruned node version 0.11.2 # accepts incoming connections # relays and verifies blocks # relays and verifies transactions # can not have a wallet # does not provide old blocks to nodes catching up to the current blockheight -snip-
The lack of incoming connections/not full-node part comes from the 0.12 release notes, so I'm not too sure what to think about that (possibly that the text is correct). I'm not sure what you mean about pruning not being helpful in the short-term, it depends on whose perspective you're looking from. As a blanket statement, I didn't make it.
Are there release notes already? Can you give us/me a link, I was unable to find them. |
|
|
|
Okay this is refund address: 1CwV6JERyAZpsMAhVqDSpoqYt3eAqs7xFc
I don't feel like blaming you or blocking you , what i felt bad was that you called me scammer , and this i don't like , because i am as legit as you are.
...and the only other time that wallet 1CwV6JERyAZpsMAhVqDSpoqYt3eAqs7xFc is mentioned here at BCT is when it shows up in this message by someone else.... ~PayPal-Trader~ is an Alt of ? ? ?So sardasa can partiall refund the btc to Pasaris? |
|
|
|
Staking my new address 1CZqDKDSroUpj8vCLkqXtw8Tpa6rnDJzcP
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Scott Btc Here.. now January 14, 2016
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
1CZqDKDSroUpj8vCLkqXtw8Tpa6rnDJzcP
H8ZZeIONkSiAjLz+zsydfr+5pavr4kF2uhueD6SaEXkjChmqp5xIlPz/63bgbqUVZUYf1CnRIFe6N2THJWPNdnI=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
verified |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
