For the benefit of " lighter" transactions, overall cheaper fees and old-wallets/services compatibility, Choose SegWit that starts with " 3" ( nested Segwit in a P2SH). Regardless of what I chosen, are there no compatibility issue between them now and future?
For now, native SegWit " bc1" ( bech32 P2WPKH) SegWit addresses aren't supported by some exchanges and online wallet services. Some of those are not accepting bc1 addresses for withdrawals. |
|
|
|
|
What are the examples of those "Centralized Algorithms"?
AFAIK, mining algorithms are designed to decentralize the transaction processing and production of coins in the first place.
What do you mean by "Algorithms that sacrifice decentralization for scalability"?
Easier algos which are more scalable than others can be centralized? I believe, no.
Whenever those powerful adversaries come up with an ASIC that can outperform the masses, the battle of the hashes will still continue, the coin will still be decentralized.
|
|
|
|
Last week, I saw recommended fees rise up to 40 sat/byte again when blocks were full. Fees are low again, but it won't last forever.
I can confirm this, I just recently tried to consolidate 3 inputs ( SegWit) with 0.5sat/byte tx fee ( Electrum approx it as "within the next 25 blocks") and it got included in a block right after <10minutes, literally the next block after I broadcast the transaction. I'm seeing blocks with 51 transactions right now ( #522030) With that, even 0sat/byte can be confirmed within hours ( but I'm not recommending it). |
|
|
|
|
Why not ask here?
Members will probably tell you "not to mine using a laptop". I tell you that, as well.
Surely it can mine CPUmining-optimized algorithm (old CryptoNight is not the best choise for now) but laptops aren't designed to run 24/7 @ 80-100% usage,
that will probably strain the compactly assembled peripherals inside by the temperature.
Laptops with integrated high-end GPUs are not cheaper than Rigs with GPUs, in fact some are worth 10 times the price of the GPU itself.
Using those for mining is a no-go.
If the laptop is at disposal, go on. Earn few decimals of XMR(s) before throwing it in the trash.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you trying to find any possible explanations to those "stuck transactions" last December? Or a conspiracy theory?
Theoretically, someone can if he's a miner or a pool operator that has the majority of the total hashrate (more than 51%) which could continuously mine about 6-10 blocks successively (100minutes approx) by not including that tx.
Any blocks mined by others has the chance to not include that transaction, thus, another set of blocks that excluded it (from that "someone") might follow up ~another hours of delay/waiting.
This is statistically impossible unless the total number of competing miners (not pool miners, but the pools and solo miners) fell to one-digit.
And apparently, if someone have that power, he wouldn't use it just for that.
TL;DR, it's a no.
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know how I can search the block chain for a range of dates and amounts. I would like to find the transaction to see if it went through.
Use any online blockexplorer like blockchain.info, enter the block number of the block you want to investigate ( you can enter that transaction too). All the transactions are included there ( including the coinbase tx) along with the useful information: - Number Of Transactions
- Timestamp/Received Time
If it was from 2010 ( which you mentioned from your other threads), blocks at that time only consists of <10 transactions, finding a particular tx wont be that hard. You might wanna check #50001 and above for transactions from 2010-04-10. |
|
|
|
After that " someone" sent you the transaction ID and you can confirm that it has confirmations with blockexplorers ( blockchain.info) it's in that wallet, assuming that the address belongs to it. You can take all the time in the world before syncing/opening that wallet again. someone sent coins to the wallet address
If this actually happened back then, there's nothing else required to complete " that" transaction. If the bitcoins isn't there after synchronization, either the transaction was dropped or it isn't the correct wallet.dat from 2010. |
|
|
|
-snip-
-- i meant list of acronyms not list of abbreviations. link for acronyms would really helpful. Acronyms are abbreviations formed from words, what's the difference? Just use Google search for common acronyms, most of them aren't exclusive to this forum. Like NSFW ( Not Safe For Work) ex: Pornographic/Gore/Drugs images. Also, when replying a followup to your question, use " edit" and mark the edited part as edit ( if necessary) for a nicer format.  |
|
|
|
In Altcoin Mining Board, you can find what-to-mine using a single PC ( With a GPU of course). We have discussed a lot of related topics from newbies " getting-in" to cryptocurrency there. As for the cooling, your build ( a typical computer) will be fine with the usual system fan and the stock GPU fan, nothing more. Rigs built with Multiple GPUs ( Mining Rigs) are often cooled based on its room and location, from regular fans to industrial grade high-rpm exhaust fans to specialized " tents". Go to the Altcoin Mining board and try to search for those kind of topics ( and/or move this thread there). |
|
|
|
Sure you have the funds, if not, you wont be able to (2/3) sign the transaction in the first place. That 0.5BTC is BTC right? not 0.5mBTC/uBTC? - Are you sure that your Smartphone with Google Authenticator is online and date&time synced?
- Could be a fake, Electrum's only official site is electrum.org, make sure that you've downloaded yours from this site. (there are fake copies of the site containing malwares)
It you want, you can disable 2FA service for a hassle-free sending transactions ( but less secure). Here are the Steps, by HCP. |
|
|
|
|
This is weird, "invalid OTP" often occurs when your Google Authenticator Phone isn't synchronized or has an invalid date and time.
With the amount as the culprit, it could be a bug.
What's your Electrum's version?
|
|
|
|
I don't know if there's any. But to receive bitcoins, you only need any one of your Electrum's bitcoin address ( view address tab to display your addresses), or the one displayed on the " recieve" tab. Electrum doesn't even have to be online while you're waiting for confirmations ( transactions happen in the blockchain) Make sure that the wallet you have chosen is the one that you wanted to receive the fund, and also not a " read only" wallet unless you have a spendable version of it. ( you can make multiple wallet files in electrum).
Also is that anything which actually explains what all the hex numbers are and how/when/why I would use any of them?
I see for my receive transaction I have a "transaction id", one "input" hex number and two "output" hex numbers. When would I want to know them and then how to use them to do what?
Simple words: Those are terms used in digital currencies that utilize blockchain like Bitcoin, not limited to Electrum. Those are basically " traces" of the transaction for you check if it was successfully sent ( recorded in the Bitcoin blockchain). You can check them in any blockexplorers like blockchain.infoP.S: blockchain.info isn't the " blockchain" it:s just a domain named like a boss. |
|
|
|
I have had the receive request outstanding in my Electrum wallet since 7/1/2018 .... so 4 months as of today.
The " Receive" request from Electrum is unnecessary to complete the transaction. It's just a reference for you to " know" if the specific incoming transaction was received ( to that address), it also adds a label to the address. You can safely remove it from the history. PS: You should have bumped your old thread if it still not resolved |
|
|
|
Oh, that's one example of Anti-Cen's " Banking Hubs". Why do he hates that, really? For Peer-to-Peer transactions, LN is something else and still debatable if really usable by the " common" bitcoin users. All solutions they can get are still requiring something like a middleman to keep the channel open. Don't get me wrong, LN is the best scaling solution we have today in terms of " internal transactions" of exchanges and/or " on-platform user transactions" of payment processors. Their transactions aren't " trustless" to begin with, they could give their users more security and more sense of trust by using Bitcoin's Lightning Network Nodes. |
|
|
|
The average size for simple 1 input/output transactions definitely decreased during the years. But the amount of inputs/outputs per transaction seem to have increased, so you get the opposite effect. The spam on the network made it even worse.
By looking at a huge block like: #521564, The average size of a 1input/1(2)output transaction didn't have that much size reduction even when SegWit address was used as input/output. By using SegWit, the " weight" of the transaction is greatly reduced= more tx in a block, less transaction fee, not ( much to) the size in 1in:1out tx scale. And Yes, there are a lot of multiple input/output transactions now and most of them aren't SegWit ( why the heck?), but, if those tx was sent as 1input:1output, those could add more spam to the network, more unnecessary transactions. "Batching" may not help to increase the T/Sec, but it is greatly recommended to decrease the number of pending transactions. |
|
|
|
-snip-
I'm pretty sure that the OP is talking about an Altcoin: Bitcoin Private (BTCP). Its addresses starts with " b1" prefix. // guarantees the first 2 characters, when base58 encoded, are "b1"
base58Prefixes[PUBKEY_ADDRESS] = {0x13,0x25};
@streamplusThis forum is for Bitcoin development, you can move this to Altcoin Discussion to look for the accurate answers from BTCP users and developers. |
|
|
|
Another example is that dogecoin attracts technically illiterate people. This is the basis of knowledge about crypto-currencies
Wait what?! From what " basis" did it came from? Dogecoin and any stable coin attracts traders, anything that's " geeky" attracts technically illiterate persons because of geek's natural curiosity of the technonumbers and flashing lights. OP Author did not ask for preaches and haven't responded to the first two replies, this thread must be locked. |
|
|
|
I'm always expecting that LBC will require KYC verification soon. Yes it's P2P but still a " widely known" trading platform, regulators wont tolerate any crypto in their sights that has the potential to become a hidden sub-black-market trading ground  Time to move to a new p2p trading platform?
I never used LBC since it isn't available in our Country but we have local exchanges and 3rd party trading service providers that requires KYC verification even before this KYC " issue" became a Bitcoin-users' issue, and I didn't have any problem with that ( In my case). If you wanted to trade Peer-to-peer anonymously, use other " methods". |
|
|
|
-snip-
Is it a SegWit ( P2SH-P2WPKH) address? As of now, there's no standard method on signing a message on any SegWit Address ( bech32 or nested "3"). If there's any, the client that used to sign the message will be the only client that can verify it. In your case ( in case that it is a SegWit address) only Trezor users can verify it, it might not help you in case of a verification is needed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
