Suppose I have 1 BTC.
I send my 1 BTC to an address XXX that has a balance of 50 BTC.
Next, 5 BTC are sent from XXX to YYY.
Where is my 1 BTC now? Does XXX or YYY have it?
Suppose I have $1 USD in my checking account. I transfer my $1 to Bill online, who has $50. Next, Bill transfers Mary $5. Where is my $1? Does Bill or Mary have it? The question is meaningless with anything fungible. Ownership doesn't track through a fungible account. Unfortunately, in this case, it is meaningful, you don't drop all your TXINs into a hat, you actually keep them apart. |
|
|
|
key = "YSJS8N4E-UXEQYNOS-4QZ4GGNO-GJXRAK9H-7CXR8F5P";secret = "1342261b8a293852349a03e3b121d2b8ea0b35e9279b040255f76b3c082cde63"; I don't think they meant to leave that there, did you? Lucky for you:- 200 OK
{u'success': 0, u'error': u'api key dont have info permission'} Oh well. |
|
|
|
Any one can confirm about this exchange site I want to buy some paysafecard but its new and have no trade befor this We have completed already several trades. Feel free to try our service out with a small amount first. Greetings, EasyXchange SX Support what is minimum amount for exchange and account is must for this or we can exchange without account also thanks for quick reply Thanks for your response! Using the payment methods Paysafecard and Ukash, the minimum amount for exchanging is 10.00 in the currency of your country. An account is not required to place an order with our service. Greetings, EasyXchange SX Support Is it only one way, or, can I buy PaySafeCards with BTC? |
|
|
|
It is (supposedly) most likely at XXX, since the client will use old coins/transactions when sending 5 BTC from XXX to YYY.
Is this true? Do older coins get used first prior to newly deposited ones? Hopefully, yes, unless the user has specifically stated otherwise (Coin control). Reason is is that high priority coins are actually free, so, the best method would be (Assuming you didn't care about mixing addresses), if:- 1. You can get a free transaction, use the highest priority input, but, use some sort of weighting system to try and weight it towards using old enough inputs that are closer to the value you're spending (So you don't reset the change for nothing) 2. If there's no free transaction, use the lowest priority coins (That aren't unconfirmed/from a brand new block), as, if you keep using the highest priority coins, then, you'll never get to a state where there's free transactions. But, if you're like me, you never allow the client to prechoose, and, manually do everything yourself, I wouldn't want my gambling winnings to pay a real-life friend, as, that looks like I'm an addict gambler, I'm much rather use some input I got from a sale where neither address is really 'know' (I.E. google address and you won't find "JustDice.com" or something). On top of that, I like binding transactions up, if I have five inputs from a singular service of 0.01 (0.05 total), and, I'm paying someone 0.03, I'd rather place all the TXINs at 0.05, rather than 0.03, and, change myself 0.02, so that I have a larger TXIN that matures faster (Depending on how mature the inputs are already, however, that may or may not be worth it). In some cases, this can also result in a free transaction (As TXIN priorities are added together). |
|
|
|
blockchain
Unfortunately, I don't believe this data is available to the end-user on blockchain.info, I may be wrong, I don't use them for anything but a simple way to check balances/etc... I'd wait for someone else who actually uses their wallet service to reply, however. |
|
|
|
I too am having the same problem no conformation been 2 days now i have read this thread and got some help but i need to find out where do i get the raw data so i can rebroadcast it in https://blockchain.info/pushtx What client are you using? |
|
|
|
I'm using "sendfrom" and I'm not changing "minconf". If the default is 1, then why did my bitcoind send transactions based on unconfirmed incoming TX? Ah, maybe because 1 confirmation is not enough to not get messed with and I should set it to minconf=3 ?
It is quite rare for a transaction with 1 confirmation to become victim to transaction malleability. You would need the competing transaction to end up in a competing block which eventually orphans the block where you see the 1 conf. Perhaps there is a bug in bitcoind and minconf is not defaulting to 1? Perhaps some testing is needed on this matter, to confirm what you're saying. I thought minconf only applies to unconfirmed transactions from external parties. minconf does not apply to change. So some of your change may have been uncormfirmed when you sent a batch of transactions. Some of those may have been mutated which resulted in some of subsequent transactions not going through. They are adding an option for unconfirmed change going forward. Might be in 0.9rc2? See: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3651A possibly workaround now would be to batch multiple payouts in one transaction. Rather than chaining them one after the other. Should save some fees also? If that's the case, just use createrawtransaction & listunspent. Not the best, but, oh well. |
|
|
|
How often do you buy on the internet?
On average, once a week
On average, once a month
On average, 2 or 3 times a year
I haven´t bought on the internet yet. (please, jump the following 2 questions) Every day, why is there no "everyday" option? Boo! Shit quiz. EDIT:- Are you an owner of a bitcoin wallet?
Yes, I am, it’s on my computer.
Yes, I am, I have an online wallet.
Yes, I am, one is on my computer and the other is an online wallet.
No, I’m not. No paper and/or other means. |
|
|
|
How does this work, since Spotify isn't selling lifetime licenses?
Probably the bug where if you pay with a credit card that has at-least a dollar in it during the verification process, it'll last forever, even though they won't charge you (as you don't have enough funds in it). |
|
|
|
Armory refuses to make a transaction that bitcoind or bitcoin-qt would refuse to propagate.
I send free transactions below the "rules" all the time on bitcoin-qt (Using createrawtransaction). They get confirmed after about a week or so, good enough for me. |
|
|
|
Offline wallet:- Requires no password on the online computer to create. Encrypted (Both online & offline):- Requires a password to sign transactions, image at bottom of thread of example. No encryption:- Requires no password to sign transactions. Image of three wallets:-  Example password box:-  Offline wallet is just a interface over the other two, so, if the offline computer has an encrypted wallet, you'll still need to enter the password there before you can sign it. |
|
|
|
Yes. Answer to your question, you have zero blocks, zero is considered as false, so, you have false blocks.
At-least, that's my opinion as a non-python programmer.
Ahh... ok, thanks. So everyone else has a block-count displayed there? I have bitcoin-qt running, blockchain fully downloaded, Armory is done scanning transactions and is displaying balances and transactions etc, so I didn't associate it with a block count as I would expect that to be much higher than 0/False.  Like I said, I don't actually code in python, so, I'm just guessing. |
|
|
|
for a in range(0, 2):
if a:
print("True!");
else:
print("False!"); Returns:- Is that supposed to answer something  Yes. Answer to your question, you have zero blocks, zero is considered as false, so, you have false blocks. At-least, that's my opinion as a non-python programmer. |
|
|
|
I'm using "sendfrom" and I'm not changing "minconf". If the default is 1, then why did my bitcoind send transactions based on unconfirmed incoming TX? Ah, maybe because 1 confirmation is not enough to not get messed with and I should set it to minconf=3 ?
It is quite rare for a transaction with 1 confirmation to become victim to transaction malleability. You would need the competing transaction to end up in a competing block which eventually orphans the block where you see the 1 conf. Perhaps there is a bug in bitcoind and minconf is not defaulting to 1? Perhaps some testing is needed on this matter, to confirm what you're saying. I looked into the source, it does default to 1, it's quite clear:- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/f60e49d49c72908356d70d05ae30c6e63be2192d/src/rpcwallet.cpp#L765-L767Simple as: value = 1;
if(customValue) value = customValue; Anyway, sendfrom only verifies that you have enough funds in your wallet that's confirmed at one, it doesn't actually process them there (And uses the normal priority processing). I'm unsure why it failed, can I ask, have you messed around with the account features? I notice it's uses accounts, and, accounts are the most accurate things (I can have an account with infinite BTC, if I want). |
|
|
|
Thanks, I think I got it.
Wouldn't it be helpful if bitcoind had a switch like "do not send transaction if unconfirmed incoming TX exist"?
They do, all over the program:- https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_calls_listctrl+f "conf":-  I think the one you're talking about is:- sendmany <fromaccount> {address:amount,...} [minconf=1] [comment]or sendfrom <fromaccount> <tobitcoinaddress> <amount> [minconf=1] [comment] [comment-to] Both default to 1. Someone really should read up on the API. |
|
|
|
for a in range(0, 2):
if a:
print("True!");
else:
print("False!"); Returns:- |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin-QT also mandates fees, if I'm honest, this is one thing I dislike about Armory. I'm not an idiot, if I want to send a transaction in expert mode with no fee, then, I bloody well want to do it. I understand normal mode, but, pfft.
|
|
|
|
Well, i tested not using variables for the params. Instead i hardcoded the parameters and it worked. Why it would not work with variables? I've checked and the var values are all correct.
Open up wireshark, compare the difference? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
