i sent message to quickseller and macbook-air to put it to f2pool but still not response
You need to wait. People do not and cannot respond immediately. |
|
|
|
Your transactions are quite large, but pay a very low fee rate, ~9 sat/byte on the first, and ~3 sat/byte on the second. According to http://bitcoinfees.21.co/, the current recommended fee rate for the fastest confirmation is ~240 sat/byte. Read https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1802212.0 for what you can do to fix the issue. Note that miners probably will not help you because the transactions pay too low of a fee rate. The first thing you should try is ViaBTC's transaction accelerator. It's a little crowded right now due to the high fees on the network, but it'll probably help to get your transaction through. ViaBTC will not accept their transaction because they do not accept transactions with fee rates less than 10 sat/byte. |
|
|
|
Achow, the Apple support people did this and I just did it again. Armory does not show up in the library/applications.
The folder is ~/Library/Application Support/ (not the two word folder name, Application Support). What version of Mac OS are you running? |
|
|
|
|
Can you post your debug.log? There might some error with Qt and those errors should show up in the debug.log file.
|
|
|
|
MacOS support is a little lacking for Armory. The person you really want to ask help from is droark as he does all of the OSX stuff. In finder, go to ~/Library/Application Support. See if a folder named Armory is in there. If it is, then that means that Armory was able to run. Go into that folder and find the armorylog.txt and dbLog.txt files. Open both of them and copy and paste their contents into a new paste at http://pastebin.com/. Then post the link(s) to those pastes here. If the Armory folder does not exist, then Armory did not run and something is blocking it from running. |
|
|
|
I hav been waitin for 7 days now so want to try second option. However, if I do that will my BTC be safe? Its a big amount for me (0.48 BTC)
Your Bitcoin will be safe. Bitcoin does not and cannot magically disappear. It will either go to whoever you sent it to when the transaction confirms, or the transaction will be "forgotten" and your wallet will revert to a state where the transaction never happened. Plus how to do it, "to start the Bitcoin Core wallet with -walletbroadcast=0 option"? I just double click th wallet and it opens and starts to sync automatically...
Right click the shortcut you use to start Bitcoin Core. There is a box labeled "Target". Click in that box and move the cursor all the way to the right. Add a space, and then type -walletbroadcast=0. Then click OK. When you start Bitcoin Core, it will have that option set. After you are done, do the same thing but remove the stuff that you added so that your wallet will rebroadcast again. |
|
|
|
|
Part of what makes blockchains so powerful is that nodes (which includes miners) must be able to verify that the block is legitimate. You can't do this without knowing what the data inside the block is supposed to be.
|
|
|
|
|
The transaction has one confirmation now.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin Unlimited is not proposal to remove the blocksize completely, it is just a proposal to increase the blocksize from the current 1mb block that is the max size miners are currently mining.
If BU gets in miners will then be allowed to mine blocks up to 2mb and therefore including up to double the amount of transactions already being mined into blocks.
That is incorrect. Bitcoin Classic was the proposal to increase the maximum block size to 2 MB. Bitcoin Unlimited is a different proposal which allows users to set their own acceptable block size and allow miners to choose a block size that they want to mine. |
|
|
|
|
I highly recommend that you don't do this because it can cause network partitioning, potentially persistent chain forks, and further the polarization of the debate.
Are you also planning on changing the user agent string used by your software?
|
|
|
|
Wasn't the SHA1 collision limited to PDF documents?
I only quickly read the statement, will have to re-read the document more carefully.
The attack was done on PDF files because that was the easiest to do that makes the collision obvious (clear visual difference, same hash). However, they have shown that it is possible to produce a SHA1 collision in general (a PDF is just a bunch of bytes of data, just like any other piece of data). Anyways, if someone is able to crack SHA256, they will be using that technology for something larger than bitcoin.
We are talking national security type stuff here: breaking into government systems and decrypting top-secret documents.
The problem is not that QCs can break SHA256 (and they really can't) but rather QCs that can break ECDSA. If someone can get the private key out of a public key, then Bitcoin will need to stop using ECDSA. Quantum Computing is Science-Fiction and nothing else! One value cannot be two values simultaneously (or switch between the two)! It defies all logic, observable reality and deep down you all know it!
Just because you don't believe it is possible and can't get your mind around the extremely difficult concepts of quantum physics does not mean that it is impossible. Not only have quantum computers been made (low qubit, but still QCs), but the quantum behavior has also been observed. IBM has been doing a lot of research into Quantum Computers and have also made a 5 qubit QC which people can use. |
|
|
|
Interesting about changing the addresses, how are the addresses changed?
is it a matter of setting up a completely new wallet?
No. Wallets and addresses are not the same thing. A wallet contains multiple addresses and their respective private keys. Getting a new address is simply generating a private key, deriving the public key, and then deriving the address. The private key is then added to some storage medium so that the software knows about it. |
|
|
|
Not the same, no one should have any issue with the core developers developing segwig or lightning network or anything else they wish. The issue is that they have the power to decide or directly influence if it is part of bitcoin or not.
How is it not the same? Some employees of Red Hat can have the power to decide or directly influence if a change becomes part of the linux kernel. Some employees of the DoD can have the power to decide or directly influence if a becomes part of TOR. It is exactly the same; the people who have the most expertise regarding something specific generally are those who have the power to decide the changes and influence it. And when it comes to Open Source Projects, those people generally work for companies that can use their expertise with regards to the open source project, or their company made the project to begin with. In the case of some of the Bitcoin Core devs and Blockstream, some of the Core devs have the expertise of working with Bitcoin, and thus they founded or were hired by Blockstream. So by your logic Satoshi's concept of halving every 4 years is foolish or the number 21 million is foolish. Function good/ Constant bad. No, I never said that. What I said was that they think that block size increases as done by BU, Classic, and XT are a foolish way to increase capacity. I never said that functions are better than constants. If that were the case, then XT and BU should be supported, and they are not. No I am saying you develop whatever you want but you should not have the power to decide or influence whether the feature you developed should be part of an open source project like bitcoin when your company will directly benefit if that feature is added to the open source project.
It was not just those who work for Blockstream who implemented Segwit and lightning and decided that it should go into Core. It was implemented and modified by multiple people, proposed by multiple people, and reviewed by multiple people, many of whom are not affiliated with Blockstream in any way whatsoever. |
|
|
|
|
What do you mean by "dead"? If you mean unusable, then no. There is nothing that prevents you from continuing to use an address.
|
|
|
|
Thanks achow101, I got the sha256sums file from bitcoin.org, i would have presumed that it would be right  where are you getting the hash from ? I also got it from bitcoin.org. And from the gitian builds that I and several other people did. I just realized that your problem is that you are looking at the wrong line (or your software is not showing the line breaks properly). This is the SHA256SUMS.asc from bitcoin.org:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
466adccf7352f06de35afc1627a3ea721764268ceaf08fa3641f9b47e7df091a bitcoin-0.14.0-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
55957e2c35aa2ba836cbae7cbf945bcf489a46b243551b0f6fd86f60603032a6 bitcoin-0.14.0-arm-linux-gnueabihf.tar.gz
e4bb8b52acde07788dfcf024645fe291f0deca2b7172939fb2ddb8789fe56973 bitcoin-0.14.0-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz
e01e3cdd3c4138eccaf0c1267caa3bcdb6949ee63c1e396842b70f102fb4bcaf bitcoin-0.14.0-osx64.tar.gz
50fea43935e93381552b6730444eed6bbe513637a785e1b864b0c5883729228c bitcoin-0.14.0-osx.dmg
d743d4866a0d4c1457f81530c45258a8b6383d1cafc458eedcba8d01728a641e bitcoin-0.14.0.tar.gz
95a030be5c1649023e3aa81d1cd9eabd4258f1b00f0fc51066d02126219705af bitcoin-0.14.0-win32-setup.exe
864ef77b9b4812ec59adff04d44213a6039c66970a9ae31e8620997a8c1537bc bitcoin-0.14.0-win32.zip
f260d52cf2fe91c4be99ed6fcf8aa0de669ff326c5da920b7ed3a3e2ec981e0a bitcoin-0.14.0-win64-setup.exe
415693ed81cfc4960bbfcb815529003405aefbf839ef8fc901b0a2c4ef5317d0 bitcoin-0.14.0-win64.zip
06e6ceeb687e784e9aaad45e9407c7eed5f7e9c9bbe44083179287f54f0f9f2b bitcoin-0.14.0-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)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=PU5A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
The hash of the setup.exe matches. What you are trying to compare it to is the zip file, not the setup. |
|
|
|
that file is giving me this: f2 60 d5 2c f2 fe 91 c4 be 99 ed 6f cf 8a a0 de 66 9f f3 26 c5 da 92 0b 7e d3 a3 e2 ec 98 1e 0a for "bitcoin-0.14.0-win64-setup.exe", exactly the same as using the certUtil command, redownload the SHA256SUMS.asc file again, maybe you misclick something  I am definatly not getting that, getting f2 60 d5 2c f2 fe 91 c4 be 99 ed 6f cf 8a a0 de 66 9f f3 26 c5 da 92 0b 7e d3 a3 e2 ec 98 1e 0a by putting in certUtil -hashfile bitcoin-0.14.0-win64-setup.exe SHA256 Where could i be going wrong? That's the right hash. Your Sha256sums.asc file is bad. |
|
|
|
Also the statement "Additionally Segwit and lightning benefits nearly everyone who uses Bitcoin, not just one company." should not be made, it is your opinion and again you assume it is correct, when we are trying to judge its correctness. If it was as good as you say it is, then you think that a lot of other people are stupid that they cannot see what you see.
I do think that a lot of people are stupid for ignoring the statements made by other people and other companies. Multiple people not affiliated with Blockstream have said that they think that segwit and lightning will benefit everyone. Multiple companies not affiliated with Blockstream have said that segwit and lightning will benefit their business and products. No, I never said that. Why do you think I said that or implied that? Do not misconstrue my words for something else. What I said was that only one Blockstream employee has commit access to Bitcoin Core, and he is not a maintainer. No Blockstream employee controls Bitcoin Core as is oft-repeated by the anti-core group. It is related more to having the power to directly influence those who will ultimately make the decision. If they are not part of blockstream then they have equal right as all other developers but when you are to judge on a product your company is working on, you should not have the power of making/influencing the decision.
So you're saying that everyone who works for a company that does stuff related to an open source project should have no say and cannot contribute to the project? Do you realize how absurd that idea is? |
|
|
|
How is Blockstream going to recoup its 71M VC with sidechains?
There are a lot of ways they could make money off of sidechains. As one of the only companies with developers who are experienced with making sidechains, they could provide a service where they make sidechains for people. They can also make permissioned sidechains and require people who want to use said sidechain to pay them some fee. How can they serve two masters at the same time?
In the same way that people who work at Red Hat who also contribute to the Linux Kernel. Or how TOR is partially funded by the US government and had DoD employees working on it. Is it not obvious that they working for Blockstream and at the same time holding back on upgrading the Block size to pave the way for SegWit & LN? You cannot throttle something and then suggest a solution to make it faster,
They aren't throttling anything, and are not " holding back on upgrading the Block size to pave the way for SegWit & LN". They aren't supporting a block size increase because they think that increasing the block size as people want it to (by changing the constant) is a foolish way to increase capacity. In fact, if Blockstream did control Core, then Adam Back's 2-4-8 proposal should have been accepted without complaint, but it wasn't. Or they would have accepted Pieter Wuille's block size increase hard fork, but it wasn't. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
