you see you say decentralized and miners in same sentence,
Chinese miners is not one cohesive group. Not all chinese miners do the same thing, not all miners do the same thing. There is no one cohesive group that defines "chinese miners". The chinese miners are decentralized, each individual person can do whatever they want. On the other hand, developers are a cohesive group as there is really only one software that defines the network. There is only one software, so whatever an individual developer does, the entire cohesive group produces only one thing that represents "the developers". That is centralized, chinese miners are less so. why do some chinesse miners would have a majority say in it,
They don't. There is no single miner which has a majority say in anything. For any consensus change to be made, there must be consensus, i.e. nearly all miners (not just the majority) must agree to enforce the new rules. Likewise, nearly all full nodes must also enforce those new rules. when devs should be ones making decision,would you think that miners are smarter and know whats better or someone who develops and patches the code ?
No. No one group should be making and forcing decisions and changes onto everyone else. The miners should not be forcing users to a certain change, devs should not either. Since the way i see developers are independent,miners will chase profits and whatever fill pockets for them.
Miners are independent as well. Again, there is not one cohesive group of miners that decides what all miners must do. However, by virtue of there being only one software, there is a cohesive group of developers that decides what the developers do. |
|
|
|
hi im new to this forum  Anyway not new to btc,and have a question,why do developers just dont push out whatever update they want and ,finish this political debate for good,since clearly giving miners power over mining,fees isnt decentralized option,more like exclusive cartel. Since devs only need to roll out update and let whoever wants it to implement given theres no flaws with control it will populate itsef,thus people will move to it,it might mean end to current btc,but surely next version would be better in scalling and speed thus new chapter.Seems really simple solution,instead asking people who own monopoly what they want. The developers are not, and cannot be, the ultimate final authority. That would make them a centralized group that has control over Bitcoin, and that is completely antithetical to Bitcoin's ideals. All that the developers can do is to propose a solution, implement it, and make it available to everyone and then the community as a whole must decide whether to adopt that solution or not. That decision is made by people running full nodes and miners choosing to signal readiness for the solution. But the developers cannot and will not force people to adopt a particular solution. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin Core has a dynamic fees feature. Use that in the future. You can see the details of it and choose a different fee by clicking the "Choose..." Button at the bottom of the send window next to "Transaction Fee".
|
|
|
|
And if I have 1 BTC in my bitcoin core wallet and hard fork happens what are my actions? How to split BTC and BTU and sell BTU but not BTC for example?
BU will need to implement anti-replay functionality in order for that to work. While you can send and avoid transaction replay, it is fairly difficult as it requires acquiring some coins mined after the fork and sending that with your current coins in order to make the transaction invalid on the other chain. Furthermore, many major exchanges have publicly signed a statement saying that they will not list BU unless they have a way to guarantee that transaction replay is not possible, so you would have to wait until then to even be able to sell. |
|
|
|
Here's the 0.14 screenshot, it shows 0 available balance  The Abandon transaction is grey out.  You will need to delete the mempool.dat file in the datadir and start Bitcoin Core with -walletbroadcast=0 then in order for Abandon Transaction to become available. The 0.12.1 shows the 6.93 balance but does not have the any transaction record anymore, not even the first 5BTC one.  If you did zapwallettxes then it won't know of any of your unconfirmed spends and show only what is in the blockchain.  The first transaction is already in block 457837 though, just not confirming yet, so I am not sure if it will be forgotten. This is incorrect. A confirmation means that the transaction is in a block. If it is in a block, then it cannot be forgotten. Your transaction has already confirmed then. What do you see in your wallet for it? |
|
|
|
Hi, I did a few transactions using Bitcoin Core a month ago, they work ok but not this time.
Today I try to send 5 BTC to my exchange wallet and the transaction got stuck because I use the default fee per byte and it's still showing as unconfirmed transaction.
I tried Bitcoin-qt --zapwallettxes=1 at first on Bitcoin Core 0.12.1 and my balance shows my original amount. I then use Blockexplorer which doesn't provide up to date info and I thought I still have the original amount in the wallet address. I try to send my entire amount 6.93 to a new wallet address that I generate. The client show 0 after the sent, but using Blockchain.info show the new address never get the amount.
Keep in mind that blockchain.info is just a service, not the actual blockchain. What you see on that site is not necessarily representative of the actual blockchain or state of the network. Technically, until a transaction confirms, the Bitcoin is still "in your wallet", i.e. you can still create a conflicting transaction to send it elsewhere. My concern is 1) I am not sure if this transaction will be forget by the network in a few days after I stop the client and wait for blockchain.info to report the transaction is gone.  There are 2 destination address, the 5 BTC going to my exchange wallet 3DgGLF..., the 0.516xxxx BTC is an unknown address 1DvNDL. Blockchain.info shows the 1DvNDL has 1 transaction only. The fee is shown as 0.0001107 BTC. Why is the 0.516xxx BTC so high and what address is this? That most likely is a change address. When you spend Bitcoin, you are actually spending from a previous output which is associated with an address. Like a physical paper bill, you can't spend just some of that previous output at once, you have to spend it all at once and receive back some amount of change. So in order to make it so that you actually spend the amount that you want to and that you can keep the change, your wallet will generate a new Bitcoin address under its control and send the change to that address. 2) I try to make a new address and try to send all balance to myself using higher fee, but I still am not able to move the balance probably because my real balance is 1.37 currently as shown in blockchain.info?  No. Your "balance" doesn't really matter with what you are doing. 3) This is the balance shown in blockchain.info, if the transaction get cancel, the balance will be 6.8959193.  But my Bitcoin wallet is shown to have 6.93xxx. Why? I did a few transfer to myself previously. It is probably because you have another change address in your wallet with the rest of the Bitcoin in your wallet. You really should not be using a block explorer to keep track of your balance because it does not know of all of the addresses in your wallet. You will only see the balance of one address, not of all of the addresses in your wallet. 4) I upgrade Bitcoin Core to 0.14. It remember that I sent the 6.935 Bitcoin in my 2nd transaction and show my available as 0BTC, even when I -zapwallettxes=1. When I downgrade back to 0.12.1, it shows I still have 6.9354 BTC available, and the sync is up to date? Why?
IIRC zapwallettxes no longer works with 0.14 without a bit of finagling. With 0.12.0+, you shouldn't be using zapwallettxes anyways. Instead you should use the Abandon Transaction option that appears when you right click a transaction in the transactions list. |
|
|
|
|
The transaction has been confirmed now.
|
|
|
|
Your browser has nothing to do with the operation of Bitcoin Core. What are the specs of your machine? How does Bitcoin Core fail? What do you do that causes it to fail? Please post your debug.log file. But more full nodes would be better or not? Do installations of Bitcoin-QT contribute to the confirmation process or not?
More full nodes are better, but they do not contribute to the creation of blocks (aka confirmations). More full nodes will not help confirmations be faster. |
|
|
|
|
The blockchain does not store IP addresses. The service blockchain.info however does. They operate a node, and other nodes connect to their node. When a transaction or block is sent to them, they record the IP address of the node that relayed the block or transaction. This IP address is almost definitely not the IP address of the node which created the transaction.
The IP address search feature allows you to lookup what transactions or blocks an IP address relayed to blockchain.info.
|
|
|
|
Are this forum's database is the same with that forum? If @achow101 is right, then how's that possible. If this two forum has different databases then this will not be happening but...
No, the databases are not the same. Theymos does not operate the other site. What the other site is doing is that it is constantly checking Bitcointalk for changes to any part of the site (threads, profiles, etc.) and then mirroring that exactly. |
|
|
|
Do you think thats the long term solution for Bitcoin?
No. But right now, that is all that users can do to make their transactions confirm faster. There is no other option at the current time. All that users can do is pay a higher transaction fee and hope that the miners activate one of the scaling solutions available that require consensus changes. |
|
|
|
Thank you for the reply. A follow up then, how are the compact blocks uncompressed (if you get relayed a cmpctblock)?
The compact block contains shortened versions of the transaction ids in a block. The node, when it receives the cmpctblock message, will calculate the shortened txids of all of the transactions that it has in its mempool. It retrieves the transactions that have matching shortened txids from the mempool in order to rebuild the full block. If it cannot find a transaction, it will request it from the peer that sent it the cmpctblock message. In this way the block is relayed without needing to actually send all of the data for the block when the block is relayed; most, if not all, of the transactions in the block will likely be found in the node's mempool and can be rebuilt from there. |
|
|
|
The current revision of secp256k1.c is marked as having executable permissions on the owner, group and everyone levels. This can be clearly seen in the system header of the originally linked github page. The commit where this change was made to the file was also linked.
Ah. I see it now. It's probably just a mistake/oversight from one of the contributors. There isn't anything in the file that can be executed as is. |
|
|
|
|
No. The partially validated block may propagate but nodes will still validate it fully and then reject the block if it is invalid. Relaying a block before validation does not mean that the block will never be validated by the node; the node will still validate it fully.
|
|
|
|
|
What do you mean "marked as executable"? What is marking it as an executable? What is telling you that? The file is a text file, it can't be executable.
|
|
|
|
|
That website, and any website which clones and mirrors Bitcointalk, is not affiliated with bitcointalk in any way whatsoever. Do not try logging in to those websites as they may be phishing sites.
|
|
|
|
I see, I don't think I have changed my password for a couple of years, so what you say makes sense.
Then you must have also had a fairly weak password too. Anyways, that your account was compromised has nothing to do with spectrocoin. Perhaps the other users whose avatars were changed might also have old passwords?
It was mainly some sort of scam to get people to put money into a bitcoin account supposedly on coinbase for some sort of signature promotion.
No. Your account being compromised has nothing to do with spectrocoin, and what spectrocoin is doing is not scamming. Spectrocoin is operating a signature and avatar campaign where they pay people to wear their avatar and their signature and make posts. Whoever got control of your account decided to enroll the account in spectrocoin's campaign and then make posts so that they could make money. |
|
|
|
It is fine with connecting to the internet, I can just block that port from incoming connections, it is fine.
There's only one outgoing connection. Electrum doesn't take incoming connections. Do you have a link to something about that (I did search but didn't find it)? All the other wallet software I have been looking at seems to only be able to "import" a wallet created by it's software. I do not know what software is going to be used for the xPubs and will not be able to import it as I only have an xPub or several of them and not a wallet file.
You can test it yourself. Make a new wallet, go to File > New/Restore and choose the option to make a standard wallet. Then click Next and choose the option to "Use public or private keys". Then click Next and the next window will have a box where you can enter the xpub to make a watch-only wallet. |
|
|
|
So is there any way nowadays to speed up blockchain tx?
Whenever I send money using blockchain.info web interface my tx is unconfirmed for a while, but when I get money from 3rd party websites, say virvox, tx gets like 30 confs in 2-3 hrs WTF?
Pay a higher transaction fee. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
