Latest posts of: emsi

Show Posts
Pages: [1]

Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Fee is larger than transaction now. Bitcoin is broken?

on: February 20, 2017, 10:34:19 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on February 20, 2017, 09:20:46 PM Every one of those payments that you received were essentially worthless. The site that sent them to you probably knew they were sending you worthless amounts, but they didn't care. They were still getting their profits from advertising revenue. Effectively, you've been scammed. They were not in 2013. The payments were coming till October last year or so. I managed to move some at lest in 2015. It's not a big loss for me but having any money that is unspendable yet perfectly legit means the currency is broken. (And it looks like 0.0001BTC is not a "legal tender" any more which happened without any announcement). It's 0.0001 today and might be 0.01 in a year (just depends on what miners will find profitable at that time). Just wonder what happens when there is no more new coins to dig. The commission will be the sole source of profit... unless the miners will hardfork bitcoin into an ever lasting source of new bitcoins or whatever. That means Bitcoin is broken beyond repair no matter how you will ridicule people with small coins (I remember the days of bitcoin faucet sending such coins for free). p.s. yes, i mistyped one 0, the screenshots were correct though. p.s.: This is the the address with the dust: https://blockchain.info/address/1AsPzC53491jKTvwrUEZnvF6cgtXDWD8mX... and I can tell there's more addresses with such small coins: https://blockchain.info/related_tags?active=1AsPzC53491jKTvwrUEZnvF6cgtXDWD8mX I remember when I was reading about bitcoin a dacade ago or so it was meant to be perfectly suited for micropayments... now it's turned into micro-pain-ments

Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Fee is larger than transaction now. Bitcoin is broken?

on: February 20, 2017, 07:41:09 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on February 20, 2017, 06:39:16 PM

Quote from: emsi on February 20, 2017, 04:24:42 PM

- snip -
it calculated the fee of over a 1BTC for it
- snip -
The rejected transactions are not very huge, the average looks like this:
- snip -

After a bit more investigation, I've found that this is demonstrably NOT TRUE.

The example transaction that you posted spends a total of 0.00063050 in inputs. It would be IMPOSSSIBLE for that transaction to have a fee of 1 BTC.

The example transaction that you posted creates a total of 0.00062050 in new unspent outputs (0.0000878 to 1Dcu2y3eefKRVkJY7JSJeaouRyEnBYaWJt and 0.0005327 to 1N7afkxPv9b4CRaTwecqwHisRH7yMUPQvF). This means that transaction had a transaction fee of exactly 0.00001 BTC. That's a fee of just barely more than $0.01

Something you are saying just isn't adding up. Either you are lying to try to spread FUD, or you are misunderstanding something you are seeing.

Probably the transaction I pasted was one of the smaller ones I tried (my bad).
Here is the output of a full amount transaction calculation:

Basically I'm not able to make it. The client is not even attempting to make an actual transaction as it finds it not feasible at all.

The wallet is a result of hundreds of transactions like this:
https://www.screencast.com/t/nd1ZHCS04HY (~500 x 0.001BTC)

When I try with a smaller transaction, like 0.009 with over 10% fee of 0.001 I end up with following transaction being rejected:

Code:

Transaction:
   TxHash:    6e211d4377e6be2cab106c8e46c89510e5f68b9ba390afb242ea03f5a84b85b4 (BE)
   Version:   1
   nInputs:   5
   nOutputs:  2
   LockTime:  0
   Inputs: 
      PyTxIn:
         PrevTxHash: af419306f1dc87614eef95028e86fde839225a056395265eb6c3083058acd432 (BE)
         TxOutIndex: 73
         Script:     (493046022100a5a1d97eaeabc814219009c3e21bbde7b2d109c139309108e590)
         Sender:     1AsPzC53491jKTvwrUEZnvF6cgtXDWD8mX
         Seq:        4294967295
      PyTxIn:
         PrevTxHash: 78c937c5c9ddb419d3bf518036405bacd3fdf862d5ca4aa9e406613fe6a431c2 (BE)
         TxOutIndex: 18
         Script:     (4830450220658166a3aa317f3474bcbdf98846423f02d2ea7c963b1392ab962c)
         Sender:     1AsPzC53491jKTvwrUEZnvF6cgtXDWD8mX
         Seq:        4294967295
      PyTxIn:
         PrevTxHash: dd9da02bbb566681162f9956f6c2d6e47d2d0428098a2c0aba9ba4cb25ddc91e (BE)
         TxOutIndex: 74
         Script:     (493046022100b5f1085d9e2730cc003f740554eec2d1ddc0a94dbd74aeebf29d)
         Sender:     1AsPzC53491jKTvwrUEZnvF6cgtXDWD8mX
         Seq:        4294967295
      PyTxIn:
         PrevTxHash: 49cb45f6e3e3dacf174c9e911691f30c01878a527ab9756b1a87d4113700b837 (BE)
         TxOutIndex: 47
         Script:     (48304502210082c199a6b385c3b20b42862dcd8a1cde03e885ea6f45995b7df7)
         Sender:     1AsPzC53491jKTvwrUEZnvF6cgtXDWD8mX
         Seq:        4294967295
      PyTxIn:
         PrevTxHash: 62e2c9099dc95e8d16aa046ab5efa9b587aa68b55d5b35b875424559c7d6a98a (BE)
         TxOutIndex: 45
         Script:     (48304502203734cb9066f44077bed7d6a7ff41c36b67ae8709c7da937f93df7d)
         Sender:     1AsPzC53491jKTvwrUEZnvF6cgtXDWD8mX
         Seq:        4294967295
   Outputs: 
      TxOut:
         Value:   90000 (0.0009)
         Script:  OP_DUP OP_HASH160 (1FfzoU7AX3Yqx4bt7kw4xVEn8tyRrrs7sq) OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
      TxOut:
         Value:   22476 (0.00022476)
         Script:  OP_DUP OP_HASH160 (17v9P7EFfHjWCCug711x3sGZqkZz6Mz4KT) OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG

Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Fee is larger than transaction now. Bitcoin is broken?

on: February 20, 2017, 04:50:14 PM

Quote from: pedrog on February 20, 2017, 04:33:07 PM You can try your luck and make a transaction with low fee, but looking at the network right now it will be dropped, just wait until sometime when the network isn't congested. This morning was ideal for such transaction, there were very few transactions waiting. I tried this morning. Last Friday the fee for sending out 0.05 was over 1BTC, this morning it was like 0.1, still twice the amount to send! Even it were ten times lower (which seems it is not going to happen ever again) a puny 0.01 it'd be a 20% which still is ridiculous.

Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Fee is larger than transaction now. Bitcoin is broken?

on: February 20, 2017, 04:24:42 PM

Today I wanted to send out the bitcoins that were accumulating on one of my wallets. I was receiving there micropaymants for web ads. Unfortunately I'm not able to send any of it out (a 0.05 in total, not much but still ~50 bucks). I'm using armory and it calculated the fee of over a 1BTC for it (like 20 times greater that the transaction amount!!!). I tried to decrease the transaction but no matter what I do I end up network rejecting my transaction. All the incoming transaction are for 0.0001 or slightly more. The rejected transactions are not very huge, the average looks like thsi: Transaction: TxHash: 025c0ffe015a8e6a35a9e7bc9018e786194ef0e3a055c7507a38f840f5938902 (BE) Version: 1 nInputs: 3 nOutputs: 2 LockTime: 0 Inputs: PyTxIn: PrevTxHash: f405598c0580cea546c73a9ed5e52347f3a07a3cb4d8b01b50a647f7438458a9 (BE) TxOutIndex: 31 Script: (4830450220019b4a6a32918f3bf72b8e67ec55cb6cd3aa97fc30dc3c8794c2be) Sender: 1AsPzC53491jKTvwrUEZnvF6cgtXDWD8mX Seq: 4294967295 PyTxIn: PrevTxHash: 86ea39dc35303a47b57689acaa8f96274ff5cc2412bc5e4c254c15ce6bfa1321 (BE) TxOutIndex: 29 Script: (483045022100b29a0b29202e19f2dc651b3ec842a8b72a3d39c3f41d14ee9445) Sender: 1AsPzC53491jKTvwrUEZnvF6cgtXDWD8mX Seq: 4294967295 PyTxIn: PrevTxHash: dd9da02bbb566681162f9956f6c2d6e47d2d0428098a2c0aba9ba4cb25ddc91e (BE) TxOutIndex: 74 Script: (483045022100aab39ac4adba537d9d441b7f92f11b66554ff2573ba3871a2285) Sender: 1AsPzC53491jKTvwrUEZnvF6cgtXDWD8mX Seq: 4294967295 Outputs: TxOut: Value: 8780 (8.78e-05) Script: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 (1Dcu2y3eefKRVkJY7JSJeaouRyEnBYaWJt) OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG TxOut: Value: 53270 (0.0005327) Script: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 (1N7afkxPv9b4CRaTwecqwHisRH7yMUPQvF) OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG I think it's already too late for many wallets (like mine) with dozens of 0.0001BTC to get consolidated. How can I keep retrying the transaction? Currently if I try to send it gets rejected very shortly afterwards. (I'm using Armory). It looks like Bitcoin is fundamentaly broken. Miners are ruling and ruining it simultaneously because they have no viable alternative to offset their losses.

Economy / Games and rounds / Re: FISHBITFISH.COM

on: July 23, 2014, 01:43:56 PM

I appreciate this game (I just won the round #424) though it makes no sens to play it It makes no sense because no matter what you (as a player) do, you can always be beaten with 100% probability. Actually adding jackpot and incrementing the fee with time just obfuscates the picture. The best strategy to win is to wait for others to bet and beat them just before it makes any point to bet again (that's what I did). However there is very little point to bet at the very begin as there is almost nothing to win from that (the jackpot) and the probability to be beaten is huge (as opposed to bet at the end). In classic casino games the solution to that would be to limit the single bet. That's how we have a 1$, 10$, 100$ and high stakes tables in most casinos over the world. Unfortunately it's not possible with the way this game is implemented (I can use any address to send BTC to bypass that limitation). Another problem was already mentioned: the game can be screwed in the way that winning the bet makes you loose the money. It's hard to consider that as fair. It was mentioned that it makes no sense for player to play in such way though it make a lot of sense to make such bet as a house. The house is not prohibited to participate in the game in any way. I'm not indicating that house is cheating on purpose but the sole possibility to do so make such game unfair. The house is making enough profit of every game so it should pay a jackpot that is proportional to the income from the game and remove the skewed scenario. Another improvement could be extra jackpot that is paid to the very first bidder, which would attract the early bidder as she'd have a 50/50 chance to retain that. Still all of that would just make the game more complicated while not removing the strategy to 'always beat them all' as the game is not based on any luck.

Pages: [1]