That is actually not so easy (as most major nodes will detect and reject any such attempt).

Basically you will have to wait (up to at least 24 hours) for your tx to be dropped from the mempool (assuming it doesn't get confirmed before then) in order to "retry" spending your outputs with a different tx.

I don't use their wallet service but perhaps that is the case.

I think your tx will probably confirm but it will take quite a while.

Waiting for "jonald" (I can't spell CIYAM little own my own name) to be slapped in the face by Carlton Banks now.

I'm afraid that you are the one who is confused - the tx consists of inputs and outputs and those inputs are part of your tx.

(if you have no idea about how Bitcoin works then at least pay attention to those that are trying to help you - you did not pay a large enough fee)

You mean your inputs don't you (and I see a very large number of them)?

Each particular input might not be "dust" but you have to add fees due to the overall size of your tx.

(I'll correct myself that "dust" might not be the right term - but you have many "low-value" inputs which is what is causing your tx to be lower priority)

You tx is full of "dust" (I assume you've been using faucets or the like to have accumulated that).

If you want to spend "dust" then unfortunately you have to pay more fees to do so (otherwise the network would just get drowned in such txs).

Please provide a link to your tx.

Eric - I live in China (my Chinese isn't great but my wife is Chinese) - feel free to contact me via PM to discuss anything about this (I am not paid nor associated directly with any of the parties involved in these disputes).

What I do know is how to code raw transactions and write software (I've been a software engineer for nearly 30 years now).

What is the "interblocknet" and why does it matter?

The revolution that Bitcoin has started with money will continue with services but as we know Bitcoin will never scale to handle all of the world's transactions so how will this be managed?

IMO we are going to end up with many blockchains (most likely one blockchain per major service or even company) that allow for specific service payments which will remove the "middle-men" (i.e. websites currently who are instead replaced with "miners").

Consider something like Uber - do drivers really need to pay a % fee to a company in order to offer a service?

If there was instead a "blockchain service" whose tokens were perhaps "kms of travel" then you can do away with the centralised website and the commissions (only requiring a mining fee to keep that blockchain going).

It is possible that these will be "side-chains" although I think it might be wise to have more than one "core blockchain" (in case of systematic failure).

To be honest I am not really sure - initially I just assumed it was due to living in China (as accessing a lot of internet can be slow here especially if it involves connecting to nodes that are outside of China) but when I was back in Australia for a month it was no better (it never managed to catch up the one month it was behind and I let it run for at least ten hours per day).

Perhaps the laptop I'm using is simply too slow to handle all the ECDSA signature verification in a timely fashion - when the next version is released (which will have the much faster ECDSA stuff that has been developed by Core) I will upgrade and see how it goes.

Obviously if the block sizes get much bigger I'm not even going to bother trying to run a full version of Bitcoin (and I suspect there are probably others who are facing the same situation).

Personally I am surprised at @DannyHamilton's post myself.

So I guess I will just go on record to say that I support Bitcoin Core (although I can't even run it these days because it never catches up).

Nice find (wasn't aware of that myself until now).

OP - perhaps we should be using a number based upon this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonal_system

(it would make Luke-Jr very happy)

I can just see the headline:

@franky1 saves Bitcoin by recruiting Mechanical Turk "captcha solvers" to work on the core development (who says you need qualified programmers to write software?)

So where are the open source projects being funded using these platforms and why isn't Bitcoin work listed on them already?

(it seems pretty silly to even be posting about this here rather than simply creating something on one of those websites - so why don't you take a break from here and do just that?)

Please set up a website and see if you get any coders to join in with the concept.

At least I have actually *done this* (you have done nothing other than to post here).

You don't want software created "quicker" as that is how you get "rubbish".

Again - just try and you'll see - they will not come (good programmers are hard to find and are very well paid so don't tend to want to go home to do more paid work on projects after hours).

Initially I had put in around 25 BTC to various tasks for CIYAM (including ones that were ridiculously easy such as changing the year text in all files which I paid 1 BTC at the time when BTC was probably at least at around 200 USD).

If BTC goes up radically again I might try the experiment again but I don't have much hopes that it will work (perhaps in the future when even programming jobs have become mostly obsolete the approach might take off).

Please stop with the immature insults (this isn't the schoolyard now and no one is impressed by it).

You might find this interesting: http://ciyam.org/open/?cmd=view&data=20131001033213505000_P&ident=M100V112&chksum=29ee23ae

(I was working on the idea of developing software by payments for tasks several years ago - result - it doesn't work as software developers do not want to work that way)

So if you can find enough qualified developers to do work this way feel free to use my software to organise it (it is open source and you can actually create an entire website the same as http://ciyam.org/open just by pointing and clicking with virtually zero typing).

Put simply - you can't do software development by "popular vote".

Please show evidence of any (successful) project that has adopted the approach that you are outlining.

(and btw - I am not drunk but indeed normally to be bothered even responding to your posts I probably would have to be)

Also - why are you only restricting the voting to miners now (previously you have stated that everyone should have a vote)?

So - if we are going for "popular voting" then I propose that we vote on the following:

1 - Free beer.
(assuming the majority votes for this then all participants will get free beer)

2 - (whatever silly technical thing that 99% of people don't actually even understand)