Latest posts of: CIYAM

What you are probably wanting to do is use "-regtest" (rather than "-testnet").

To "mine" enough blocks to be able to send up to 50 TBTC when using "-regtest" is as simple as this RPC:

Code:

> ./bitcoin-cli -rpc_password=xxx generate 101

What is going on is purely and simply "politics" - there really hasn't been any scientific reasoning used about the need to increase the block size to any particular number (the proposals have changed several times already) but apparently it is "so urgent" that Gavin believes that the core devs should have the project taken away from them (and given to a team with only two decent programmers).

I wouldn't worry too much about it as the miners are not so likely to want to kill their own income by causing Bitcoin to fragment into several alts.

I guess the problem is that I'm not really getting the actual "use case" that you are trying to handle (so it's not clear to me exactly why the standard send commands are not suitable).

Certainly I would agree that "raw transactions" are only for advanced users.

Quote from: codedelux on February 01, 2016, 10:44:55 AM

But why not meet in the middle? Why only the most simplistic and the most complex? Why not have a function that allows source/to/change handling directly and let core guard it from stupid mistakes? It's not a new function, only a helper.

I do believe that they added something to prevent you from sending a ridiculously large fee now (which would have helped me out a long time back when I first started playing with raw transactions).

Perhaps you should look into some of the other available wallets (maybe they'll have closer to the functionality you are wanting)?

Quote from: codedelux on February 01, 2016, 10:31:01 AM

I followed this https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-examples#transaction-tutorial when I started out. I found it to be quite complicated to handle the source and the change this way. Googling it shows that lots of people have trouble with the select source and change handling.

How is this complicated?

Code:

> bitcoin-cli -regtest sendtoaddress $ADDRESS 10.00

(I fail to see how it could really be any simpler)

If you don't want to deal with the UTXOs, fee calculation and change address then you just use "sendtoaddress" and it does all of that for you.

If you just use the "sendtoaddress" then it will look after the change automatically for you (as well as choosing the UTXOs automatically) - I don't think it can get much simpler than that.

Quote from: codedelux on February 01, 2016, 09:55:26 AM

But don't you need to calc the exact amount for the last address?

Are you referring to fee calculation?

(perhaps I am not quite understanding the issue you are describing)

Quote from: codedelux on February 01, 2016, 09:44:55 AM

My example:

sendFunction(arrayFrom, arrayTo, addressForWhatsLeft)

As the "address for what's left" (after fees of course) is just another "to" you only need this:

Code:

sendFunction(arrayFrom, arrayTo

which funnily enough is what is provided.

Quote from: Mastsetad on January 31, 2016, 07:33:35 PM

I would like to the freedom to transact on the main chain whenever I want. I do not want to pay very high fee to send bitcoin on the main chain.

And I would like the freedom to travel in time with a time machine - but oops - you can't do that - why don't you wake up and realise that you can't use Bitcoin for zero fees as well?

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 31, 2016, 06:07:44 PM

If I may: Being an ass only makes it easier. Being trolled is a test of endurance and intellectual integrity. You've failed this test before. Lips sealed

Well - keep on trying - and let's see if you can beat me.

(btw - you just screwed up as everyone else can now see that your entire point is to troll rather than anything else - something that I knew that you would disclose sooner or later simply because you are not very smart)

Quote from: ATguy on January 31, 2016, 05:58:45 PM

Im gonna stopping feeding your troll based responses anymore. Good luck catching other victims.

Good - getting trolls like you to stop posting is mostly what I am doing now (and I'm sure I'll catch others just easily as you).

Quote from: Jet Cash on January 31, 2016, 05:57:33 PM

I didn't think I attacked anybody. I merely stated that I had a lot of trouble understanding SegWit, and the future benefits to Bitcoin. I understyood, the bloc k doubling concept pretty instantly, but I still don't understand full thedamage such a shortterm solution can do tyo Bitcoin. Perhaps the advocates can explain it.

Re: your picture, I may be old, but I'm not old enough to have that granny as a kid. Also I suspect that her size might be attributed to an increase in the blocksize of her food.

Do you understand how a B+Tree works?

(I guess not)

but does that stop you from using RDBMS engines? (of course not as everything you search upon uses them).

You don't need to understand the tech and no-one is blaming you for not - but don't try and ask for the tech to be explained to you unless you want to bother to learn how to understand it.

I would love to have a "time machine" but such a thing is not possible - so you might want a crypto-currency that cannot be implemented as well - just accept that it is not possible and try and be happy with what we have.

Quote from: ATguy on January 31, 2016, 05:43:43 PM

Bitcoin Core stopping Bitcoin adoption without working offchain solutions ready.

Rubbish - next point?

(or are all your points just personal opinions like this one)

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 31, 2016, 05:29:22 PM

Personal attacks dont really add much to your credibility. In fact the entire point you just made comes across as a bit of a rant, with nothing to substantiate it.

ps Good luck getting your daughter into her segwit lycra.

And look at that picture and your comment. Cheesy

(some forum members are so stupid that they basically troll themselves)

I think I will call you @autotroll from now on. Cheesy

Quote from: ATguy on January 31, 2016, 05:19:38 PM

I can speak for myselves only - (blah, blah, and blah)

If you can actually make a point then please make it in one small sentence less than 20 words (no-one is going to read your wall of text).

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 31, 2016, 05:07:04 PM

You're in China. Can't you fix that? Get them all grokked to the ethos or whatever already. Angry

I don't think that the Chinese government really gives much of a fuck what I think about (and if they did that would actually probably be of concern to me).

As I stated before - for the purpose of communication between the core devs and the Chinese miners I would offer my help (free of charge) because I am a Bitcoin "believer".

Quote from: blunderer on January 31, 2016, 04:51:05 PM

Not important?
If by "important," you mean "dictator," then sure. What would you like to talk about?

What on earth is the point of the people that are thinking that we need to suddenly rush into a hard fork in order to make block sizes bigger?

(as this whole topic actually was about this it appears that the Chinese miners don't actually have a clue)

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 31, 2016, 04:47:04 PM

There don't seem to be any hard psychological or financial incentives to running full nodes built into the system. I imagine if consumer use ever takes off in China we'll see more of them pop up?

We are not going to see that as Bitcoin is not allowed to be used for commercial purchases in China (it is only allowed to be used like a "stock").

Quote from: Fatman3001 on January 31, 2016, 04:45:10 PM

Because you only see what you want to see.

Graphs are what politicians use to convince the masses of whatever they want to.

Please don't waste my time (like Peter R always does) with such nonsense.

Quote from: blunderer on January 31, 2016, 04:44:44 PM

Have I suggested that "Gavin [should be allowed to] control things? If so, could you point me to the post that led you to think so? I'd like to edit it. ty

Okay - so we have agreed that Gavin is not important then - now we can continue.