|
For your first transaction, the other output isn't for the network fee but it it intended for someone else. The highlight of the output basically just means that that output is intended for you and the other is intended for someone else.
For your second transaction, it appears that the output of the transaction has already been spent. I assume that the address (1GgCX9...) belongs to you. If so, are you using an online wallet for that address or are you using a local client?
|
|
|
|
|
I'll take "1", "6", "c", and "f".
TXID: 102d5335d4dc2bf217290113ebff933376bef5dace9020cc3b09564fc7509ec9
|
|
|
|
|
On a second thought, I'll also grab the last 2 slots "6" and "d". Can't wait for this raffle to conclude.
TXID: 7c8866ed0080bb6d59893977d392e910909afd21978996f2e355048f59bf6780
|
|
|
|
|
My first time in this raffle. Gotta try my luck.
I'll take 8, 2 and a.
TXID:40d3335a686f33050e4e6873a098ead88bb80b0f4c8c60f8bd611e78f887ecbb
|
|
|
|
|
Request For a No Collateral Loan
Required BTC Amount: 0.2BTC
Estimated Loan Duration: 1 Month
BTC Address: 1PUhsy18L9HDd8tbfnkxarQDo4HZmsB2YP
Signed Message:
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is ranochigo and today is 8/6/2019. I am requesting a loan of 0.2BTC from DarkStar_ with the full repayment including interest due in one month, 8/7/2019.
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1Yzig3e8vx79XyYMjJShk4yBPp1YcvPbQ
H4UQ4FajfDTzF4idoiChZGuNw6fQlY7iP5ZhuHFa5BVGWqxR1LzDG8mqUrwGuQz6sTTC9bC8IqSFUxw TK8jwT78=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
|
|
|
Calculate how much hashing power does an attacker need to control in order to create a valid sidechain that would overtake the main chain from 1 block before the height of the transaction sent to the exchange in: 1 hour / 1 day / 1 week[/i]
We always count with a block generation rate that averages 10 minutes from what I understand?
That is given in a perfect scenario whereby the probability of getting a block remains equal with everything constant; in reality, the varience results in a lot more fluctuation. Your answer from this part is roughly answered with the link above. The reason why double spending becomes harder after 6 confirmations is because the probability of you generating blocks faster than the network gets fairly negligible after that if you do not have more hashing power than the honest network. What does the attacker need to achieve in order for his sidechain to overtake the main chain, all I understand is that he would need to have at least the hash power of the network, which is 100 hash/s here, but that seems too simple.
For a 100% success rate, it would be >100hash/s. Also i do not really understand the following part of the sentence from 1 block before the height of the transaction sent to the exchange.
The way the Bitcoin blockchain works is that the transactions are included in each of the blocks that the network generates. For each of the nodes on the network, they accept the blockchain that has the highest number of blocks, difficulty-wise. If you somehow create a longer chain, starting right before the block for which your transaction is included, you will have effectively "unspent" your coins. Block A -> Block B (with your transaction) -> Block C -> Block D (Orphaned)
|
->Block B1 (Without your transaction) -> Block C1 -> Block D1 -> Block E (Longest valid chain)
The nodes on the network will now consider the other chain as orphan and they will only consider the transactions that are on your chain. Since you excluded your own transaction, your inputs would appear as if it has never been spent before. |
|
|
|
|
It's worth noting that while it's currently not possible, private keys can be derived from ECDSA public keys with quantum computing. With Shor's algorithm, the time needed for the key to be derived gets shortened exponentially. It has to be a targeted attack and its relatively expensive.
Otherwise, its not feasible to try to obtain the private key from public key.
|
|
|
|
I mean, why did you choose a $5 fee when you're just moving $50 in the first place though. Unless you use some centralized wallet, you can set the fees to something like 50-80 sats/b and it would be confirmed probably in hours.
What's the point then? I would understand if its just to move your coins to consolidate them or for something that isn't urgent at all. If I were to go to purchase something in a physical store, I probably won't stand around for hours just to wait for a confirmation. There's also a risk that the fees would surge to a point for which my transactions would take days to confirm. |
|
|
|
|
The total amount transferred is not an issue. The transaction is relatively small with it having only 2 inputs and 2 outputs. For an average joe, the transaction size for their daily transaction is usually much larger. With every transaction, at least 2 outputs would be created; one for the intended recipient and one as change. As the change and the number of inputs accumulating, the transaction could eventually become big and impractical for most.
Bitcoin transactions are still expensive (Segwit or not), things could change with the lightning network.
|
|
|
|
I'm not so sure about this. I think there's some tools out there which, if you're familiar with just signing a transaction, will let you double-spend your funds with ease.
Really? The last time such a tool exist was with Blockchain.info. The tool basically just scripted two transactions with different outputs and they were broadcasted at the same time. This probably won't work anymore since Full RBF doesn't actually work with nodes rejecting subsequent transactions spending the same inputs. |
|
|
|
In the past, there were several gambling sites that didn't require confirmations for the Bitcoins to be credited and only needed confirmations for withdrawals. AFAIK, most of them has stopped such practices. Bitcoin transactions can be, in a sense, "reversed" rather easily. With the participation of a miner[1], they can essentially double spend whenever they want. For an average Bitcoin user, it does get a lot harder given the few criterias: 1) Transaction is well propagated with majority of the nodes having knowledge of it 2) All inputs are confirmed 3) The fee included is sufficiently high 4) Transaction is NOT non-standard, etc. However, given these factors, they are still potentially dangerous given the fact that the network conditions are volatile and it can change at any given moment. If you are able to operate with a slightly smaller margin (with the potential of losing money), then it wouldn't be that bad of an idea. At the end of the day, the risk is there but it depends on how much risk you want to take [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=327767.0 |
|
|
|
The downloading part is what I would be more concerned about. It's really cheap to get enough storage space to hold your own copy, but it can take weeks for your core client to download it. It can take days with a high speed connection, but the majority of the world doesn't have access to it. For many of us 50 or 100 megabit connection is nothing to brag about, but in many countries 2 is all that you will get. Getting a node to run in such conditions, especially with the client messing up the database from time to time, requires a huge effort.
Not everyone needs to run a full node; my stand is that if you aren't capable of running a full node, just use a SPV client. For those who are able to run a node, the internet connection is probably not the main issue. With the current state of Bitcoin, the downloading won't take that long with the simultaneous downloading from the connected nodes. The main limiting factor is probably with the disk speed and the CPU verification speed. In the long term, the disk space is probably the main constraints that we will face. Memory density isn't growing all that fast and the memory space is still fairly expensive. |
|
|
|
Am I correct in thinking that the Full Bitcoin Core wallet is the best, most secure wallet for Bitcoin? If so, can someone send me a link to a thread on it?
You're not exactly wrong. The reference client is a full Bitcoin wallet which downloads and verifies the entire blockchain. Given so, the wallet can be sure that they are on the blockchain for which the blocks and transactions follows the protocol rules. Hence, it does not need to trust anyone else to run, With SPV clients like Electrum, they rely on another node to provide the information. With how Electrum works, it uses an ElectrumX server to get all the information and cross verify them with 8 other Bitcoin nodes. Whilst this is secure enough, Electrum is still susceptible to sybil attacks. Since the client does not validate all the blocks and transactions, it is possible (though very expensive) for a few malicious clients to fabricate information to scam you. For the average joe, this is unlikely as the client usually connects itself to diverse nodes and a single honest node could break the attack. |
|
|
|
|
The transaction doesn't actually explicitly contain the transaction fees that is included in the transaction. The only parameters that has the amount of Bitcoins is the inputs and the outputs. The network automatically consider any amount that is not included in the output as a fee.
ie. If a transaction has a 0.01 BTC input and a 0.009 BTC output, the fee will be 0.001.
Most of the wallet's interface allows the users to indicate the fee so as to simplify things.
|
|
|
|
If you want, you can consider using SPV clients like Electrum. To do so, you can download Electrum[1] and validate its signature. Create a new wallet in Electrum by selecting Standard wallet OR importing Bitcoin addresses and private keys. I would recommend creating a standard wallet as it allows you to utilise all the benefits of a HD wallet. Copy down and store multiple copies of the seed and open up Bitcoin Core. To extract your private keys from Bitcoin Core, you must first know the addresses that contains the Bitcoin. To extract the corresponding private keys, go to Help>Debug window>Console and type You can skip this if your wallet is not encrypted. walletpassphrase "walletpassphrase" 300 To extract the keys: Replace the various fields appropriately. Go to Electrum and go to Wallet>Private keys>sweep and all of the Bitcoins in the addresses would be transferred to Electrum. Of course, it is recommended for you to synchronize your Bitcoin Core and transfer all the coins manually so that you won't miss out any addresses that has Bitcoin. If you have the time, you can sieve through your wallet by using listaddressgrouping and searching each of the addresses manually. [1] https://electrum.org/#download |
|
|
|
not quite clear yet so i bring in more details
what do you suggest to use in tools/preferences?
1.fee estimation: ETA,static or mempool?
2.edit fees manually or use replace by fee?
I recommend using the mempool. Static is the worst of the 3 since it doesn't show the fees based on the network condition. With ETA and mempool, it is somewhat the same but for most users, ETA would be the most suitable since it allows the user to roughly gauge the time that they need it to confirm instead of estimating using how many transactions are infront of you. 3.transactions: use change addresses or use multiple change addresses or something else?
A single change address. Having too many outputs increases the size of the transaction and it also increases the size of your subsequent transactions since you have to combine them eventually. |
|
|
|
as i still need to complete such transaction time after time, wanted to try Electrum wallet
to not to go wrong again i have one question about settings in Electrum
what kind of adjustments i need to do in wallet before paying invoice?
so that network fee could be added to the bill and not subtracted from the required amount
thank you
With Electrum, the client treats the amount of Bitcoins that you've entered in the sending page as the intended amount for the outputs of the transaction. The amount that you've entered excludes the fees that is included in the transaction. You can use the slider to increase and decrease the fees; you don't have to change the value that you're sending either. |
|
|
|
Also, I should think any site without the "S" on its url http isn't secured and looks phishing.
With Tor onion links, it isn't necessary for sites to have SSL for it to be secure. Unlike normal HTTP, onion websites eliminates the need for an SSL certificate to validate the identity of the website. In addition, since connections are encrypted from end-to-end, it isn't possible for MITM attacks to be executed either. It's fairly pointless for onion websites to have ssl certificates at all. |
|
|
|
As a security measure, I believe it's better to have more than it is to have less full nodes in the network. Because if there was a change in the network that causes some people not to run full nodes due to higher costs, the network will centralize by some "number". We want the contrary that, more decentralized = more security.
I doubt there would be a difference there. At least without the change, the network would be decentralised. That would likely occur only if there is some form of protocol rule change which somehow results in higher costs for those having nodes. In this case, there would likely be fairly little support from the community and the fork wouldn't even happen in the first place. If it is just a modification to the reference client that doesn't affect Bitcoin at a protocol level, people would be fine running the older nodes which wouldn't matter. |
|
|
|
|
What client and OS are you using? If you're using the reference client to synchronize with the network, it should be able to continue the download from the last validated block automatically. That is unless if the data files were corrupted after you shut it down. If so, did you receive any warning about the blocks being corrupted and that you need to reindex the chain?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
