I entered 0.00010001 BTC/kB as a custom fee and then went to viaBTC to accelerate it.  As you said, I got the "Submissions are beyond limit.  Please try later" message, as it was 15 minutes past the hour.  I was going to try again on the next hour, but ended up stepping out for a few hours... and when I got back, I noticed the transaction ended up getting my first confirmation only 50 minutes after being sent, so I didn't have to take advantage of any acceleration services, at least this particular time.  Transaction fee was only 10.041 sat/B (0.00161776 BTC as you calculated for the 16kB transaction size).

Thank you so much for taking the time to help out and post all of those details!  (PM'ing you to find out how I can send you a beer tip!)

Also a big thanks to everyone else who posted, really great community. 

CH

Ok, so it does appear I misunderstood... I definitely don't mind using viaBTC if it allows me to transfer those couple of BTCs for as little as 0.00163 BTC. 

Is it just a matter of choosing the option to "pay only the required fee of 0.00001 BTC/kB" in bitcoin-core and then going to www.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/ (after signing up) and accelerating the transaction by specifying a total fee of 0.00163 BTC or higher?

CH

PS.  Thanks for also clarifying the import vs sweep difference in terms of fees.

I wasn't aware of this function!  Turned it on and here's what I'm basically seeing:

• The vast majority of my holdings can be transferred at a reasonable fee of 0.0045 BTC (at the wallet recommended 0.0026 BTC/kB), at a transaction size of 1.7kB, as there are only 11 outputs
• I have less than 2 BTC in two addresses that together comprise of 109 outputs; with a transaction size of 16.2kB, the fee would be 0.0433 BTC.
• The smallest transaction is 0.0010 BTC. I do not have any dusty outputs.

So clearly, moving everything to my hardware wallet, with the exception of those 2 BTC (for now), won't be an issue in terms of fees.

For the 2BTC in those multiple outputs, is my best bet still paying with the minimum fee and then accelerating with viaBTC, in view of the above details I just shared, if I want to absolutely move them now?  

I think I read that I could sweep these in a new wallet, but that it would make no difference in terms of getting hit with large transaction size/fees once I'm ready to move/spend them (regardless if its a local wallet, online wallet/exchange, etc), is that correct?

One last thing I'm considering is leaving those 2BTC in my wallet as someone recommended in this thread and hoping that there are more reasonable alternatives in the future.

Thank you so much for your insights and advice on this and also thank you Danny for those step by step points, truly appreciated.  I'm currently on the road, but will be going over this info in depth within the next day or two and report back!

CH

I'm about to transfer my BTC to a hardware wallet, but Bitcoin-Core is telling me that my transaction size is 17.7kB and therefore the recommended normal transaction fee it's advising me is 0.048 BTC ($105 USD).

This came as a bit of a shock to me, especially since I read that the average transaction size is about 200-300bytes, and I did a little more reading. I'm beginning to suspect that my transaction size is so large due to a small amount of mining I did a few years back. When I look at my wallet transactions, the vast majority of those small transactions (a little more than 100 in all) show as "offline" (as opposed to confirmed).

• Is my assumption correct that all those same small offline transactions are what's causing my transaction size to be so large?

• Why exactly would those transactions show as offline, if my bitcoin-core wallet is is currently up to sync?  Is it become they are "unspent outputs"?

• I believe the only way to consolidate these is to pay the fee and transfer to another wallet/address, is that correct?

• If so I have no other options, what would be the smallest safe amount to set as a transaction fee, if I don't mind waiting a few days?  Would it be 151satoshies per byte (x 18,000bytes = 0.02718 BTC / $59 USD), if I'm reading this correctly https://bitcoinfees.21.co/#delay ?  Or could I go even smaller than that and still be safe?  

Thanks!
CH

PS.  One of the posts I got some of my assumptions from:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1773352.0

Just a quick thanks for those comments and also to add that  I ended up getting a hardware wallet. 

CH

Exactly what I was looking for, thank you!




Very cool, but how much of a risk are USB sticks in such a scenario?  (not trying to be contrarian, I'm asking this objectively)
From what I've read, one would have to be specifically targeted, and by some pretty sophiscated malware at that.  Does that bring the risk down to almost zero?  If so, I think I'd be confident enough with a near zero risk, as I'm setting up this cold storage temporarily, until I get my Ledger Nano S.
That said, please do let me know if my understanding/assumptions are incorrect!

CH

PS.  Additionally, would the attacker not require phyiscal access to the USB drive to engage in such an attack?

Hi all, long time Windows guy over here and a noob with Linux.  I’m trying to install Electrum on an offline computer running Ubuntu 16.04, while I have watch-only wallet on different (online) computer.  I had no problems setting up Electrum on the online computer, but I can’t get it installed on the offline computer.

I copied over Electrum-2.8.2.tar.gz (in my Home Downloads directory) and untarred it.  In the Electrum directory, I ran: ‘python electrum’.  That resulted in the following error:  “Error: Could not import PyQt4 on Linux systems, you may try ‘sudo apt-get install python-qt4’.”

So I ran ‘sudo apt-get install python-qt4’, but then got “unable to locate package python-qt4”.

After searching around, it’s my understanding that I have to download and install python-qt4 (as well as python-pip?), which lead me to http://pyqt.sourceforge.net/Docs/PyQt4/installation.html... but then my nooby eyes started crossing.   

Is there an easier way of installing Electrum and its dependencies on this offline computer? 
Or, alternatively, would it be considered less secure (in a cold storage setup) to simply have this machine connected online just for the initial Ubuntu and Electrum installation phase, and once installed, disconnect it from the network forever after that, to sign transactions?

Thanks!

CH