|
Keep in mind that there is no standard for signing messages using nested and native SegWit addresses. This means that the verification is a pain for other people. Electrum would be the most universal choice, but it is only available for Android and desktop operating systems. If you really need to use your iPhone for that then consider switching to a legacy address. The other person will be able to use any software to verify your message.
|
|
|
|
as far as i know that wouldn't be RBF anymore since the nodes seem to have implemented the Full-RBF not the RBF-FSS. which means changing the input/outputs mean a completely new transaction and would be a double spend.
That would still be RBF. As long as the transaction is marked as replaceable, which has been the default for some time now, and the node supports opt-in full RBF, the original transaction will be dropped even if the newer transaction spends the same inputs. I have just tested it on the Bitcoin testnet using the latest beta of Electrum. I had to double-spend manually, though. The original transaction was instantly dropped from the mempool. |
|
|
|
Does anyone know if it is possible to create Multi-Path LN Payment channels?
No, MPPs still haven't been implemented ( source). Existing channels won't need to be closed once they add them. Both the sender and the receiver need to support MPPs. Intermediary nodes do not know if the payment was split so no special behaviour is required on their side. Did you run with Administrator privilege? Don't forget, it's still a test version, so maybe some features won't work?
That's an intentional behaviour. All implementations use only multisig native SegWit (P2WSH) addresses. |
|
|
|
Can you share some screenshots next time this shows up? One of my friends said he didn't get this notification while using his Nano X with Electrum 3.3.8, and it's my first time hearing about this too. Does this mean Nano X judge that a beta version is the latest version that the user should use then?
I am quite sure I got the same message on Electrum 3.3.8 a few days earlier. It is related to this vulnerability which has been fixed in the Ledger Live and Bitcoin app update. Third-party software needs to be updated as well (see #6230). Your friend might have not updated his device. Here are the photos you asked for. By the way, a new beta version has been released. |
|
|
|
I haven't used nested segwit for a long term address and it seems to have so many compativilities that is probably a bad idea to try to (I'd probably pick legacy over it even with the fees)...
What are your other reasons not to use nested SegWit addresses? I have switched completely to native SegWit addresses and I didn't encounter any major inconveniences. If I need to sign a message using one of my addresses then I include an information in the message that it can be verified using Electrum. Is it possible to verify one when you use electrum if you generated it from electrum or can you just not generate a trezor signature eon a nested segwit address?
If you set up an Electrum wallet using your Trezor device, you can use it to sign messages just as if you were using a standard Electrum wallet. They can only be verified in Electrum, though. Messages signed using legacy addresses can be verified by Electrum, Trezor Wallet and any other software. Let me know if that's not what you wanted to know. I didn't think it'd be possible to create a signature without electrum then wanting to verify it before displaying it...
Could you rephrase this sentence? I don't get what you mean. |
|
|
|
Trezor added a new wiki page about Tor a few days ago. It turns out that it is possible to use Trezor devices through Tor with only a few steps: Instructions for the Tor Browser 9 and newer
In Tor Browser 9, this configuration setting has been hidden into the advanced settings.
Type about:config in the address bar
Search for the key network.proxy.no_proxies_on
Set the value to 127.0.0.1:21325
Trezor Wallet should work now in Tor Browser, and all connections are anonymized via the Tor network! |
|
|
|
It won't work. As far as I remember, Trezor implemented it before Electrum. Since it is not a standard, they have no reason to put effort into adapting Electrum's implementation because it might become obsolete. BIP-322 is supposed to address this problem. |
|
|
|
But I made a Standard wallet a month ago and transfer BCH to my electrum wallet, which has a legacy address(starting with 1).
You should be using Electron Cash and not Electrum which works exclusively with the Bitcoin blockchain. Electron Cash is a fork of Electrum, so you will be able to recreate your wallet using the same seed. |
|
|
|
I'll assume this beta version is compatible with the upgraded firmware Trezor released a couple of weeks ago. Has anyone had a chance to confirm?
Yes, it works fine with my Trezor T. By the way, some time ago, Trezor changed the passphrase entry. Before the update, users could choose the way of passphrase entry directly on the device. After the update, the default method was set to host computer which broke third-party software compatibility. Now, the passphrase entry looks like this.  I have also sent 2 transactions from my Nano X. It worked fine, but I still got a message about outdated third-party software before I was able to confirm those transactions. |
|
|
|
Does that support the theory that Lightning node operators who stake more of their capital in Lightning will charge more, not less, to route transactions?
I would say that large nodes are now experimenting with the fees to see how the settings can affect the number of routed payments and their earnings. Plus maintaining the node/rebalancing channels requires specialization. It's right that they charge more for providing efficiency, amd liquidity in LN.
That's a good point. I did some calculations yesterday. You're right. The LN fees for larger payments would be nowhere near subsatoshi level if all nodes charged 0.1%-0.25% per transaction. Longer routes would be completely cost-inefficient. I believe that there will be plenty of smaller nodes offering lower fees. Currently, most LN nodes route payments at the default settings. Here are some of my calculations. Assumptions: BTC price - $10.000, routed payment value - $30. LN fee = basefee + (amount * feerate / 1000000) Default settings:  Currently known LNbig.com settings:  In my opinion, 1200 sat for a $30 transaction is way too much. If such payment was divided into 4 equal parts and sent through 4 different paths consisting of "default nodes" then 1 hop would cost:  That is definitely more cost-efficient and I believe that's what is going to happen in the future to most payments. Some parts of the payments, will be sent through cheaper routes. If the majority of the network ends up charging as much as LNbig.com or even more then the LN will be mostly known for instant and more anonymous small transactions. Do you think that a $0.12 fee for a $30 transaction being way too high is an over-exaggeration? Consider that there could be longer routes consisting of nodes with similar fee settings. Still, I do agree that nodes should earn more than they do by default, because they might need to rebalance their channels at some point. As far as I remember, someone proposed to increase the default fee settings (the basefee from 1 sat to 5 sat and the feerate from 1 to 500). |
|
|
|
remember the dream. remember the promise of LN being the route to 'sub penny tx's
That promise is still true. Users are free to use other channels. Both LNbig.com and Alex's node charge outrageously higher fees than other Lightning Network nodes. Most people would argue that they provide a lot of large channels and paths for payment routing. While the latter is true, the former will become less and less relevant over time because of multipart payments. wel onchain fees are ~$2 each
and a $30 LN is 0.1 - 0.25% = 3-9cents
so not even sub pennies.
You're right. The LN fees for larger payments would be nowhere near subsatoshi level if all nodes charged 0.1%-0.25% per transaction. Longer routes would be completely cost-inefficient. I believe that there will be plenty of smaller nodes offering lower fees. Currently, most LN nodes route payments at the default settings. Here are some of my calculations. Assumptions: BTC price - $10.000, routed payment value - $30. LN fee = basefee + (amount * feerate / 1000000) Default settings: Currently known LNbig.com settings: In my opinion, 1200 sat for a $30 transaction is way too much. If such payment was divided into 4 equal parts and sent through 4 different paths consisting of "default nodes" then 1 hop would cost: That is definitely more cost-efficient and I believe that's what is going to happen in the future to most payments. Some parts of the payments, will be sent through cheaper routes. many many people know of all the bugs of LN and are actually making more money by abusing the flaws than they do from operating an ethical business of economic benefit.
What bugs exactly? |
|
|
|
I have updated the answer to the question about the earnings from payment routing with my quote from some other thread. Since it was in Bitcoin Discussion section, some of you might have missed it. The data from my post mentioned by Rizzrack is not really relevant; I should change that answer. Take this article from 2018 as an example for that year. There are currently 25 nodes owned by LNbig.com. They provide about 52,19% (497,2647581 BTC out of 952,86 BTC) of the whole network's liquidity. I can't find any data on their recent earnings, but their Twitter account shares the amount of transactions and BTC passed through their nodes in the last 24 hours from time to time. You can clearly see the surge of the transactions in the last few months. Starting from 100-800 transactions in March and going to over 4000 in May. That is a huge change. I have tried to calculate the possible earnings using the fee formula (basefee + (amount * feerate / 1000000) and the data from this tweet, but my results were far too off. The 3rd March seems to have been the most profitable day. 161 routed transactions worth 2.24602985 BTC paid in total 219484 sat (0.00219484 BTC) in fees. At the current price of Bitcoin ($9300), it is about $20! Still, don't forget about the amount of coins locked up in all the nodes and the cost of opening transaction all channels. The 24th January is even more impressive to me. 186 routed transactions worth 0.60161437 BTC paid in total 172378 sat (0.00172378 BTC) in fees. It is about $16 now. Alex Bosworth shared that his node charged 0.25% per transaction and routed about $10,000/month which translates to earnings of about $25/month. He didn't say which node he was referring to, but since he is the CEO of yalls.org, we can assume that it was this one. That is actually interesting because of the significantly smaller capital. Coming back to earth, you are not going to earn much if your node doesn't provide enough liquidity. However, it is also worth mentioning that multipart payments are now available in all implementations. Once more wallets start supporting them, the earnings of well-connected, small nodes might increase. Note: Keep in mind that 952,86 BTC is the amount of the funds locked up in public channels. Private channels are... private so we don't know how many of them exactly there are and what is their balance ( although that might not be the case [5.4.2]). Such channels do not route any payments. |
|
|
|
A od czego zależy rozmiar transakcji? Ostatnio przelewałem bitcoiny na giełdę i tam, gdzie 1 portfel pokazywał opłatę 70zł (100 sat/byte) (segwit) tam drugi pokazywał 20 zł (100sat/byte)(legacy). Transfer zawierał taką samą ilość BTC i transer miał być przesłany na ten sam adres skąd więc aż tak wielkie różnice w ilości byte?
Albo kolejny przykład. Wysłałem 2 transfery z 1 portfela na drugi (oba adresy bez zmian w obu transakcjach) w odstępie 8-minutowym. Jeden zajął 960 byte a drugi 1400 byte
Rozmiar transakcji zależy od liczby wejść (inputs) i wyjść (outputs). Wyjścia składają się z adresów oraz ilości monet, które mają trafić na dany adres. Wejścia to tak naprawdę wyjścia, które pojawiły się już w jakiejś transakcji ( UTXO). Każdy typ adresu zajmuje inną ilość miejsca, co może przekładać się na oszczędności. Jeżeli nie masz nic przeciwko, to możesz mi przesłać ID tych transakcji i będę mógł Ci to dokładnie wytłumaczyć. Na razie podam ogólny przykład, nie zagłębiając się w obliczanie rozmiaru, a obrazując co go zwiększa. Adam otrzymał kiedyś 2 transakcje - jedną o wartości 0,5 BTC, drugą 0,75 BTC. Adam chce przesłać dokładnie 1 BTC innej osobie. W takim wypadku jego portfel musi wykorzystać w transakcji dwa wejścia (0,5 BTC oraz 0,75 BTC). Jednym z wyjść będzie 1 BTC z adresem innej osoby oraz 0,25 BTC minus opłaty transakcyjne, które trafi w zależności od ustawień portfela albo na jeden z adresów wejść albo na zupełnie nowy adres należący od Adama. Łącznie nasza transakcja będzie posiadać 2 wejścia i 2 wyjścia. W przypadku gdyby Adam chciał przesłać wszystkie swoje monety do innej osoby, to liczba wyjść zmniejszyłaby się o 1. Wniosek: Im więcej wyjść i wejść, tym więcej trzeba zapłacić. Należy wspomnieć, że po wprowadzeniu SegWit pojawiły się nowe jednostki opisujące rozmiar. Domyślny limit bloku to 1 MB (1 milion bajtów), zaś uwzględniając nowe jednostki jest to 1 vMB (1 milion wirtualnych bajtów). Legacy input: 148 vbytes; Legacy output: 34 vbytes
Nested SegWit input: 93 vbytes; Nested SegWit output: 32 vbytes
Native SegWit input: 68 vbytes; Native SegWit output: 31 vbytes
Jak widać, oszczędności są największe dla osób wysyłających z adresów SegWit. Jak można jeszcze zaoszczędzić? Zajrzyjcie do tego wątku od LoyceV. Jeżeli otrzymaliście dużo mniejszych transakcji na Wasz adres, to warto przy średnich opłatach za transakcję wynoszących 1 sat/byte, przesłać wszystko nawet na dokładnie ten sam adres. W momencie gdy średnie opłaty wzrosną stukrotnie, zapłacicie tylko za jedno wejście, jeżeli nie otrzymacie już więcej transakcji. |
|
|
|
Is there a way to move the address from my blockchain wallet to a ledger nano so I don’t lose the address (vanity address)?
If you are referring to an address which you generated on your own and then imported it to your blockchain wallet then the answer is no. You cannot import individual private keys into hardware wallets. However, if you are referring to the addresses generated by the blockchain wallet then you can recover your wallet using the seed on the Ledger device. |
|
|
|
Damn this is discouraging. 15 satoshi in 2 weeks...wouldn't even be worth the cost if BTC was $1m.
But oh well, maybe it picks up when more and more ppl use lightning
The data from my post mentioned by Rizzrack is not really relevant; I should change that answer. Take this article from 2018 as an example for that year. There are currently 25 nodes owned by LNbig.com. They provide about 52,19% (497,2647581 BTC out of 952,86 BTC) of the whole network's liquidity. I can't find any data on their recent earnings, but their Twitter account shares the amount of transactions and BTC passed through their nodes in the last 24 hours from time to time. You can clearly see the surge of the transactions in the last few months. Starting from 100-800 transactions in March and going to over 4000 in May. That is a huge change. I have tried to calculate the possible earnings using the fee formula (basefee + (amount * feerate / 1000000) and the data from this tweet, but my results were far too off. The 3rd March seems to have been the most profitable day. 161 routed transactions worth 2.24602985 BTC paid in total 219484 sat (0.00219484 BTC) in fees. At the current price of Bitcoin ($9300), it is about $20! Still, don't forget about the amount of coins locked up in all the nodes and the cost of opening transaction all channels. The 24th January is even more impressive to me. 186 routed transactions worth 0.60161437 BTC paid in total 172378 sat (0.00172378 BTC) in fees. It is about $16 now. Alex Bosworth shared that his node charged 0.25% per transaction and routed about $10,000/month which translates to earnings of about $25/month. He didn't say which node he was referring to, but since he is the CEO of yalls.org, we can assume that it was this one. That is actually interesting because of the significantly smaller capital. Coming back to earth, you are not going to earn much if your node doesn't provide enough liquidity. However, it is also worth mentioning that multipart payments are now available in all implementations. Once more wallets start supporting them, the earnings of well-connected, small nodes might increase. Note: Keep in mind that 952,86 BTC is the amount of the funds locked up in public channels. Private channels are... private so we don't know how many of them exactly there are and what is their balance ( although that might not be the case [5.4.2]). Such channels do not route any payments. |
|
|
|
Awesome, thank you again! I think it worked. I sent 0.1 BCH to Bitstamp and my BSV stood the same amount 0.2
Keep in mind that replays do not have to happen instantly after the original transfer. Don't worry about it. You are safe since you have followed the instructions. |
|
|
|
I now sent BTC to Bitstamp. I will buy BCH with that. Then I sent them as described to my BCH wallet to split BCH and BSV. Now to be sure, can I sent only 0.01 BCH to the ledger BCH wallet to see if the split has worked? If not, then I will only lose 0.01 BSV right?
Yes, you can send as little as 0.01 BCH. There is no reason why it wouldn't work, but in the worst case scenario, 0.01 BSV will be sent to the same address on the SV chain. If that happens, you will be able to use your Ledger with the Electrum SV to access those coins. |
|
|
|
I remember that from a paper wallet you had to sent all the coins to an adress because you expose your private key right?
Yes, that's what most people recommend to do. Paper wallets are usually used by people who intend not to spend their coins very often. I guess I can sent 0.01 BTC to Bitstamp from my Ledger and that is no problem right? Or do I have to move all my BTC to a new adress after sending a small amount?
Yes, there shouldn't be any problems. Hardware wallets are designed not to expose private keys, so you will be fine with the same BTC address and wallet. You could also try to ask someone to send you very little BCH, but that would expose your addresses to that person. |
|
|
|
I mean I know I can buy some on an exchange. But are these already splitted? I guess BCH for a dollar is already enough?
Yes, they will be already split. Any amount of BCH above the dust limit will be enough. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
