|
For segwit transactions it depends on the transaction.
A typical transaction of one input, two outputs is 226 bytes legacy, 166 vbytes P2SH-P2WPKH segwit (27% less), 141 vbytes pure bech32 P2WPKH segwit (38% less).
If you have many inputs, the savings are larger (and less for many outputs). For 10 input, 1 output legacy is 1515 bytes, 953 vbytes P2SH-P2WPKH (37% less), and 722 vbytes P2WPKH (52% less).
Multisignature transactions benefit even more. Multiinput 2 of 3 multisignature transactions in bech32 P2WPKH segwit are 75% smaller.
|
|
|
|
A) Use wallet that allows coin control and always pick your coins to create smallest size transactions.
Doing this will inevitably lead to fracturing large inputs until they are dust. Can be avoided of you spend the exact inputs you have so there would be no dust left over, but that wouldn't be convenient for average users. They'll still have to consolidate the dust inputs into a larger one. https://medium.com/@lopp/the-challenges-of-optimizing-unspent-output-selection-a3e5d05d13ef |
|
|
|
|
Traditional banks work by taking control of your money and giving you an IOU for them, while loaning out money's they don't have via fractional reserve.
This kind of thing will NOT work with cryptocurrencies.
You're not supposed to give your private keys to your bitcoin out, nor store them where you don't have your private keys.
Also the supply of bitcoin is fixed so their scammy fractional reserve will not work here either.
Dead on arrival.
|
|
|
|
✱It will have a premine of 2,000,000 coins (9.5%)
6,000,000 30% premine! Who will support this shitty fork?! People like this give bitcoin a bad name. |
|
|
|
It will work if everyone starts doing it themselves. But yes, right now, maybe I will have to wait for more than an hour to have my transaction to confirm using that method. BUT think about this, if one of the lowest transaction fees was accepted in the last block, then there is a good chance my transaction with the same or a slightly higher fee will be accepted.
I will try it later and post about it in the thread.
No, it won't It'll be worse if everybody does that, because it will be trivial for miners to game. . A miner could stuff his block with private, high fee rate transactions. Fee estimators that only looked at historic blocks would be fooled into increasing their estimates because it would appear that a large fee is required to be confirmed in a block.
This is a very cheap attack for miners, since the cost to them is just the opportunity cost of excluding real, fee-paying transactions. If our fee estimator requires that transactions be seen in the mempool before they’re included in a block, then the cost increases dramatically and the attack becomes infeasible. The miner would have to broadcast his high fee rate transactions and risk having to pay those fees to another miner. |
|
|
|
A few considerations about the B2X or (wrongly called) SegWit2x hardfork. Website: http://b2x-segwit.ioANN thread at BTCT: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2595620✱It has nothing to do with SegWit2x (a previous proposal) Yes, it has the same name but no, they have nothing to do with each other. It doesn't have the same developers or have the support of anyone (exchanges do not count). It is not even an "update" of Bitcoin. This is NOT a fork: https://goo.gl/8DcGsEWhy have they chosen the name SegWit2X? Because it's free publicity and adds legitimacy, which for a scam come great. ✱It will have a premine of 2,000,000 coins (9.5%) They forgot to add it to the website... sure 🙄 https://github.com/SegwitB2X/bitcoin2x/commit/08220e2a3c8ba8f53801302a8b7b6d6da5a39645✱They don't have a damn whitepaper (Plans are for noobs). Is it really difficult to create a PDF with the usual tech specs and the ideas they have or the research they have done about it? (sigh) ✱Their media The vast majority are press releases (paid or not) but they follow, in my opinion, a very clear editorial line: confusing readers by making them believe that the coin represents the old SegWit2x proposal. (I repeat: they are NOT the same) For what? Seeking legitimacy. ✱Their "team" NONE of the former developers of the SegWit2x proposal is involved in this project. To date, you cannot verify what real skills they have. They are ( https://goo.gl/wkqZDd): 1. Jaap Terlouw - Founder - Refusing to acknowledge that he is the founder. 2. Sairam Jetty - Team Lead Developer - Completely denied any involvement with the project. Left. 3. Donna Khyuz - Business Developer - LinkedIn profile taken down. Unreachable. Supposedly denied her involvement. 4. Robert Szabo - Core Developer - Unreachable. ✱Personal opinion This is fishy as f*ck. The fact that they have used the name of SegWit2x is already something shameful. Using the name of another project, which won't do more than confuse new users, is NOT justified. This is crypto, everything is open source and community, but such actions will NEVER be well seen and is an insult to the developers of the first project, the SegWit2x proposal https://segwit2x.github.ioHonestly, there are better coins and projects to pay attention to than these garbage projects. |
|
|
|
Yes, if the person is in control of the wallet address 3Lo5H7DLBTs4stnk1i6xMCQf7KHe7QswYF |
|
|
|
Thanks so much, thats helpful. So does the "paperwallet 1LRbbq7xW ---> bread wallet 13Xp1CQsy" need to be confirmed before the "bread wallet 13Xp1CQsy ---> hardware wallet 38e8aQFeN" can be confirmed? I thought you couldn't double spend. It's telling me that the first is unconfirmed as well. The Tx id is below. Both tx are still both unconfirmed.
cc9b3e6fc9699063a0bcb8a5451ca92e6885a09a24ad829c088d12dc0b9073f6
The parent transaction has to be confirmed before the children can be confirmed. Double spending is impossible when a transaction has already been added to a block (unless you have a mining pool with a large hashrate), until then any transaction can be double spent . |
|
|
|
|
If you're using the mobile app (don't use the web wallet!) go to menu, then backup.
You'll be shown a 12 word phrase.
That's your seed and can be used to build your private keys
|
|
|
|
My wallet is a Trezor. In the drop down box it gives you a list to choose from regarding the transaction speed. Normal, fast, slow etc. Next to each speed rating there is an amount next to it in sat/B. I dont know what the B stands for. So I picked normal. That was 646 sat/b. I was sending .05591000 and it ended up sending .0593984 automatically.
The amount sent includes the miner fee. If you're sending 1BTC, with a standard transaction size of 226 bytes (one input and 2 outputs) with the fee you paid, 646sats/byte, which amounts to 0.00145996 BTC, the total your wallet will send is 1BTC + the fee of 0.00145996BTC = 1.00145996BTC Why does the website remind you to include enough for the transaction fee? Bitcoin transactions are included in blocks of 1MB (4MB block weight with Segwit), and your transaction is "competing" with hundreds of thousands to be included. There is only 1 block every 10 minutes, and if you do not include adequate fees then your transaction will be relegated for others with higher fees. Don't you automatically pay the fee just to send it from your wallet? Fixed fees are not recommended because you can either overpay or severely underpay, leaving your transaction stuck in the mempool. That's why your wallet asks you to select the fee you want to use depending on how you need your transaction to confirm. Did I need to add something extra? No. You just need to pay the transaction fee for your transaction to be confirmed.
So if I send too much. I will get change back?
No. If you overpay fees you won't get "change" back. This is why you should confirm your transaction before sending. How do I know how much to add? They didn't tell me an amount. Your wallet already showed you slow, normal and fast. It calculates the recommended fee and you can usually trust it, but if you don't trust your wallet's estimation then use https://bitcoinfees.21.co to find out the current recommend fee for quick confirmation. |
|
|
|
|
Yes.
You are correct.
Spending on one chain will not affect your holdings on the other chain.
And it can't be replayed on the other chain because of replay protection.
|
|
|
|
|
Reducing the block time will lead to many more orphaned blocks, and it will make the bitcoin blockchain grow exponentially.
Bitcoin's 10 minute block time is a compromise between security and speed.
|
|
|
|
|
Like you said, a lot of them are scams so Ledger most likely won't support them.
However, if you have your 24 word seed phrase (which you should), you can always import your seed into another wallet that supports the forked coin to split it.
Don't forget to move your bitcoin to another wallet entirely before attempting to import your seed in another wallet.
|
|
|
|
I have about 0.93 btc in a breadwallet that was collected over time in much smaller transactions. The fee breadwallet recommends to move this coin is ~0.6 btc. I’m moving to cood storage and am in no hurry. I’d like to preserve as much of the funds as possible with a much lower priority transaction. Can anyone offer some advice on how to best accomplish this? Am guessing I will have to import my seed into something else? Thanks much for any suggestions.
Since you say you are not in a hurry, you should wait till the transaction fees reduce considerably, then send them with a low fee (low priority fee for low priority transaction). It should get there eventually, no matter how long it takes. |
|
|
|
It shows as pending
One of the transactions got stuck, because part of that transaction had Bitcoin which I hadn't received yet. That transaction was sent using a lower economical transaction fee. I thought it was received back. How can I tell if the Bitcoin is actually received back so I don't make the mistake again? How long does it generally take to receive the money back if it's stuck?
Usually ~2 weeks, if the transaction does not get rebroadcast. |
|
|
|
|
The inputs haven't been spent elsewhere as far as I can see.
Perhaps BTC.com is the cause of the error, because it is not showing double-spent on other block explorers.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the link. I have deleted my original post. |
|
|
|
|
There are already "problems" now, as in the case of slow confirmations.
But, I believe, with the advent of the lightning network, a huge burden will be removed from on-chain transactions and then transaction fees on chain will reduce drastically.
Basically right now most transactions on chain are small transactions, if most of them move to the lightning network, then there will be far less transactions on the main chain.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
