-snip-
Lol, this explains a lot...
Well that kinda sucks...
Any other good wallets out there? :p
I like bitcoin-core with coin controll enabled because it allows you to select which inputs to use, where the change goes etc. Basically full control. It comes with the burden of a full blockchain though  But there are plenty wallets [1] I never tried, so maybe test a bit around. [1] https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet |
|
|
|
我慢
I think OPs prefered language is french, at least the pictures posted suggest that Good advice in any way though. -snip-
shorena: forget about the fall back nodes page. The bot to update went MIA somewhere and it says nothing about the speed of those anyway.
:C Yeah thats why you have to test around a bit to find one of them thats actually fast. I know zvs has some fast full nodes, but I keep forgetting the IPs. Do you know of any up to date list? |
|
|
|
-snip- I know how this system works. But I want the change back to the same address. Not to another address. this is the transaction: https://blockchain.info/tx-index/8de56c339ff1cab00e94fc2a5b032462112e5d913292bc90d7ec6544611e3baaAs you can see, I paid 0.01234862 BTC to the destination address. But the change from where it came from is sent to a completely different address... While Multibit doesn't show this in the transaction history of the address the BTC is sent from, meaning it still shows the old balance. So this is definitely a bug, and not just how Bitcoin transactions work From the dev to someone complaining about what you want (change back to same address): Hi BitHits,
The change address chosen in MultiBit is fairly simple. It uses the second address in the wallet, if it is available. If there is only one address it uses that.
You can send a transaction to yourself no problem - it is one of the release tests I always do - so it will not generate invalid transactions.
The wallets in MultiBit are random key addresses so creating a new one for change addresses requires people to reback up their wallets. There has been at least one case where a paper wallet user deleted a wallet with change addresses in and lost bitcoin. With the current wallet creating new keys is a user driven operation.
If you want more complex change control then of course you have the choice of other wallets - MultiBit endeavours to keep things simple for new users.
It should definitly show in the balance, but IIRC multibit does not show balances of individual addresses anyway. |
|
|
|
WOW!! Someone must have balls to take a part in this..   Pic is not up to date You are not on the default trust list, thus your rating does not change how everyone else sees it. |
|
|
|
Assuming the website does what "it says it does" it still cannot "undo a confirmed tx" (only a 0 confirmation tx). So the basic advice of "don't use 0 confirmations" remains. Yep, exectly my point  Mabye I just got this: you dont actually need to know someone running a mining pool as there are services out there for this. There are no such services. Now. Point. wrong. |
|
|
|
you dont actually need to know someone running a mining pool as there are services out there for this. There are no such services. Now. Point. Lets derail this thread even further... http://www.bitundo.com/ |
|
|
|
I would try without bootstrap.dat because i have thought it's him who do a problem with my blockchain but even if I only use network to download, my blockchain is again lock. Tens minute, nothing have changed. (3years). I see hight download (over 400 mo) but blockchain is locked anyways  Maybe my Ram do corrupt data .. I dont think so. As long as you still download you should be fine. Some parts (even the old ones) of the blockchain are pretty big so you dont see a change for a while. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, the other address should be your 2nd address or multibit has changed the way it handles change. Even if your balance is e.g. 2.56711 BTC on a single address most of the time this balance consists of several unspend outputs you can control. Each TX uses one or more inputs (former unspend outputs) to generate one or more new outputs. Each input used has to be spend entirely or the "rest" will go to the miners. Multibit does all this for you in the background and tries to find the best inputs for your TX.
Lets say you have 2.56711 BTC and received them as the following outputs from a TX
- (A) 2 BTC
- (B) 0.50011 BTC
- (C) 0.067 BTC
keep in mind that usually this is more complex.
Now if you want to spend 0.5 BTC multibit can use (A) or (B), but not (C) but in any case you will have change. If we use (B) as the input for your new TX you get an output of 0.5 to the address you wanted to send the BTC to, 0.0001 as a fee and another output 0.00001 as change to one address multibit controlls for you. 0.00001 is actually bad because it is so little, so multibit might prefer to use (A), not entirely sure about that.
I hope this helps you to understand this behaviour.
|
|
|
|
I just moved 500 in btcs to Multi bit and now its $384, what is goig on?
How much bitcoin did you send? |
|
|
|
Dont be such a meanie to BTC  It is funny though. |
|
|
|
But the problem we are concerning here is the potential double spending attempts, which if success the transaction may never be confirmed.
Yup - the easiest way to "game" is to send a tx with "no fee" (that has reasonably aged inputs and a not too tiny output amount) through the "normal channels" (which looks legit but has "low priority") and then send the same tx with a "fee" (and of course a *different output address*) directly to a "friendly mining pool" (i.e. one that prefers fees over no fees) very shortly afterwards. The sad thing is that you dont actually need to know someone running a mining pool as there are services out there for this. Thus, allways be sceptic when a TX has no fees E.g. bitundo |
|
|
|
What about this vs this? The two different transactions are broadcast at the same second (according to bc.i received time) and have 2 different destination addresses. Perhaps the "wording" used in blockchain.info could be better (i.e. "double-spend attempt" vs. "double-spend"). Yes, my problem is basically that for me a double spend would be if one of the TX had at least one confirmation, but I cant tell how common this idea is. People generally have different ideas of what a double spend actually is. I have no idea what this list by bc.i want to tell me, most of the TXs look pretty normal. What about this vs this? The two different transactions are broadcast at the same second (according to bc.i received time) and have 2 different destination addresses. This looks interesting. The time is not relevant though. Its just the time bc.i received the TX. They however spend the exact same inputs. It might have been an experiment of sorts, since one was transmitted to bc.i from a node in germany and the other one from a node in japan and the amount of BTC transfered is very low. {"double_spend":true,"block_height":322877,"time":1411876758,"inputs":[{"sequence":4294967295,"prev_out":{"n":0,"value":30000,"addr":"15KUh45rrsDWxffxyAvNtZZqivA3uuSWT2","tx_index":65485082,"type":0,"script":"76a9142f5f1af9b3dc4806d8f4b11aa5fb880d18b12da988ac"},"script":"483045022100eec570ea9dd29d0c25be3f56cf5e13f3be53e129e16f63d032c0b817ed1e9f0c0220344bfe30580bfe3e255a80c321694fceed28061692e045918cc25ef7d4ef4f9d01410400d81973c54901ea63f2fe2b5214f707dbac4e5c499ad1364d8148ee9c93663bded0f86c0f6ceaa2747d8ad4034dfeea781c9b16f202f22e76cfe64f01d49980"}],"vout_sz":1,"relayed_by":"106.187.96.219","hash":"1ae0763c896d1da162c7be8c998970231c5b38786db0ec93e6efc6cdd7d240a9","vin_sz":1,"tx_index":65484044,"ver":1,"out":[{"n":0,"value":10000,"addr":"1tokyoKz3RTWDNVLdGCBjEHkdvbAxh9rm","tx_index":65484044,"spent":true,"type":0,"script":"76a91409cc3ef2423ff7d0c3552d6b2b8efdcfef7c8fbb88ac"}],"size":224}
{"double_spend":true,"time":1411876758,"inputs":[{"sequence":4294967295,"prev_out":{"n":0,"value":30000,"addr":"15KUh45rrsDWxffxyAvNtZZqivA3uuSWT2","tx_index":65485082,"type":0,"script":"76a9142f5f1af9b3dc4806d8f4b11aa5fb880d18b12da988ac"},"script":"483045022100a96c1da1bc72172180ebab6ef9837727c065f851d50813059f188ada07c19faf022018365f048eab41617ab706c2e62f1379e1918d1fa26f0c163a1ff8f4248ddb7a01410400d81973c54901ea63f2fe2b5214f707dbac4e5c499ad1364d8148ee9c93663bded0f86c0f6ceaa2747d8ad4034dfeea781c9b16f202f22e76cfe64f01d49980"}],"vout_sz":1,"relayed_by":"5.9.104.212","hash":"9ea1dc2e2d9dca8e66022df9d63f4922e2ee92ad2354db1d6b3128d8b71cd7bd","vin_sz":1,"tx_index":65484042,"ver":1,"out":[{"n":0,"value":10000,"addr":"1o24eTapXpEWZcPi1B3JDegjDuhWPauN7","tx_index":65484042,"spent":true,"type":0,"script":"76a91408b4057f38740cc77c3b15c2e9e3ca81a9c26a1188ac"}],"size":224}
|
|
|
|
-snip-
Would you consider doing this at a popular event?
Nope, for the same reason I would not consider sitting at the entrance begging for change. |
|
|
|
Why he should not just download up to date blockchain and place it in right folder?
If you just download the blockchain from somewhere you trust that the files are correct. So if you use the torrent your client will verifiy the data, which takes some time as well. -snip- Electrum or Multibit
OK , thank you very much ,i will to to try it. -snip-
How to ues multibit?
See here [1] there are other possible wallets as well. Id suggest you try all of them (or several of them) before you decide. [1] https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet |
|
|
|
-snip-
Or, the supermarket will accept your 0-confirmation bitcoin transaction as long as it has minimum fee attached.
Double-spending is extremely hard unless you have a significant proportion of network hashrate, and so it is very very unlikely a casual supermarket customer has the ability to double-spend successfully.
As far as I know, there hasn't been a double spend in over 2 years. I doubt there will be one ever again. This all depends on what you understand as "double spend". Its especially hard if you want to revoke a confirmation (">50%-attack"), which seems not to be the case here. Why be afraid of a 1 confirmation revoke if you are talking about 0 confirmation TX? Anyway a 0 confirmation TX can be "double spend"* if the TX is badly propagated through the network and has a low or no fee. In this case it would be possible to generate another TX that spends the same inputs but pays a (higher) fee and uses a full node with plenty connections to broadcast it to the network. This is indeed nothing a casual supermarket customer would or could pull off. On the other hand the supermarket could demand a fee on the TX and set up several nodes to see how good the TX has been propageted to make a possible doublespend even harder. * its not actually spend twice, but for the sake of the argument lets call it that. People generally have different ideas of what a double spend actually is. I have no idea what this list by bc.i want to tell me, most of the TXs look pretty normal. |
|
|
|
Please tell me if i'm wrong but it's not normal if i don't create block since 2 days? I try many node but i stay less than 3 connections
When you say "create" block I assume you mean download, because finding a block greatly depends on your hashingpower (GPU speed or ASICs you use) and you should not use bitcoin core for that. And I think (not sure) it would only start to mine (as in create a block) when sync is finished. No its not normal. Your client usually aims to get 8 connections, but maybe in your area its hard to find other nodes, I dont know. -snip-
[
{
"addr" : "176.9.46.6:39291",
"addrlocal" : "90.52.38.122:8333",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1411906889,
"lastrecv" : 1411905458,
"bytessent" : 2210,
"bytesrecv" : 151,
"conntime" : 1411905458,
"pingtime" : 0.00000000,
"version" : 70002,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:0.9.2.1/",
"inbound" : true,
"startingheight" : 321579,
"banscore" : 0,
"syncnode" : true
}-snip-
thats the node you sync with. |
|
|
|
just like torrents the OP may not have many seeds (or as we call them nodes)
research into adding nodes/supernodes to increase ability to download at optimum speeds.
Nope, bitcoin-core is only syncing with a single node, no matter how many connections you have. But since you mentioned the torrent: This torrent [1] can dramatically speed up the syncing and for the rest you can use a fast node from the fallback list [2] or mine [3]. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145386.0[2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Fallback_Nodes[3] 213.165.91.169 - offers 100 mbit/s in central europe (germany) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
