|
Looked around for a bit and finally found a prospect.
I'm guessing:
Nick Spanos, Co-founder of Bitcoin Center NYC
|
|
|
|
The wallet should have you specify the fee PER KB so you don't need to know the txn size. Miners sort txns by fee/kb so a 2000 sat fee on a 2 KB txn is no better or worse than a 1000 sat on a 1KB txn.
My understanding is for every 1000 bytes, you should use 10,000sat, if you want to be in the next block. Are you saying at 1000 bytes, you can use 1,000sat, and still be in the next block or within a few blocks? I would assume blockchain.info does that as well but if it doesn't then that is a poor design.
Blockchain.info has two options for sending (not including Shared Coin). (1) Quick Send - you enter the receiving address and amount of btc, and blockchain.info will broadcast from any address in your wallet and pay miners fee in proportion. (2) Custom - you select your address(s) from your wallet , you enter the receiving address, you enter amount of btc, you enter miner fee, then blockchain.info broadcasts it. My original question was how can I determine the my data size prior to broadcasting with blockchain.info. But anyway, from my understanding, it does not do that within the custom setting and seems like it should provide that information. |
|
|
|
...
It can be more and less. 146+/-1 byte is the typcial size of an input with compressed key, which is the most common currently. An input that needs a script (pay2script hash) can differ in size greatly [1][2]. Ok. Thank you. ...
Coin control is a feature of bitcoin core that lets you pick the inputs to use by hand before creating a transaction, thus allowing you control over which input(s) will be used. I am not sure if any other wallet has this feature yet. It also gives you a prediction of the size and calculates a fee in estmation of the time (in blocks) it takes for confirmation. You could e.g. set it to 10 blocks target confirmation time and bitcoin core might say 2134 satoshi per 1000 byte is enough for that, your TX is 500 bytes, thus the fee will be 1067 satoshi. Sorry for the bitcoin core is awesome parade. I understand now. No, blockchain.info does not allow selecting individual inputs within the address. Only individual addresses within the wallet. No, I understand that there is no "from" address. But you are correct. I'm using incorrect terminology. Fyi, I sent the whole balance to another address, since all the inputs in that one address was lagging blockchain.info wallet updates and etc. Now that I consolidated it (around 80 small inputs(faucets)) into one new address (and archived the old), I have no blockchain.info lag. Thank you again. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Is there a way, with a block explorer or anything, where I can calculate my transaction size with all the inputs, before broadcasting it?
Thanks.
The size depends on the number of inputs and outputs used. You could try to guess the number of inputs that will be used. E.g. you have received 7 transactions with 0.1 bitcoin in the past and want to send 0.5 with a fee now. In this case your wallet would have to use at least 6 inputs and create change of 0.6-.5-fee, thus two outputs. One - as change - to yourself and one to the other party. An input is ~150 byte, an output 34 byte, thus the estimated size for this example would be 6*150 + 2*34 = 968 and a fee of 10k satoshi would still be enough. Keep in mind that this is a very rough estimation and can vary greatly. Your wallet software might also pick inputs based on different factors. Is there no such thing as coin control for bc.i? Im really spoiled by that feature in bitcoin core. Thank you for your answer. For now on, I guess I can just assume each input is 150 bytes and output is 34 bytes. Then I can say for every 1000 bytes, I'll add a 0.0001 fee. This was helpful and when calculated, was very close to what my transaction data size actually was. One more question, is the cap or average on each input around 150 bytes, or can be more? In reference to your statement about coin control, blockchain.info's shows the inputs/outputs, all its btc amounts, and fee, but doesn't show it with data sizes. I might not understand what you mean by coin control though. I can choose which address to take from and where to send as custom. No data sizes though. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Sorry, if this posted before, but I searched and could not find it.
I do most of my btc transactions with online wallets, such as blockchain.info.
Every time I send a transaction, I have no idea how large it will be, so I can not place an appropriate tx fee for priority in the next block.
I can only find what my data size was after it was broadcasted.
Blockchain.info wallet does not show proposed data size in its description of input/output before the actual transmission.
Question:
Is there a way, with a block explorer or anything, where I can calculate my transaction size with all the inputs, before broadcasting it?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Mr Barron apparently worships not one but two false Gods. Read everything he says in that light, cogitate, and prosper.
why always these coercive worshiping accusations? does it also implies the 'pro-fork' people worship gavin? why cant we just have a constructive talk about it without accusing one another of being a cultist? seriously this is just ridiculous. grow up people. *Speaking with a trembling loud voice* "When the day of reckoning comes-forth and Satoshi descends from the heavens, then you'll know and all users will know and see and ask... was I a good bitcoiner? Am I my bitcoins keeper? And I say upon you all!... Are you your bitcoins keeper??" Sorry Hdbuck, I had to say this after your post above, and the prior posts about being "your own bank". It just popped into my head. |
|
|
|
This has been discussed many times.
1. What gives anyone the right to take coins that aren't their's merely because they haven't "moved? Who decides the time? If it is implemented, it will be easy to write software to move them every so often. So what is the point?
2. It is a hard fork, but If you want to try, fork Bitcoin (block chain and code) and convince miners and users to switch. You'll find most people want the freedom to save if they want and not have their savings stolen by people who want to control how they use their coins. But you are welcome to try. It would be a good demonstration to give people the choice.
:-)
1. Nothing. Nothing at all. It's theft. BUT alive users should be able to move their coins. And if it's implemented at the time of inception, they will be aware of this. It stops a portion of a finite resource becoming unusable. THAT's the point. 2. I have no idea what a hard fork is. If you have a point by bringing up a technical point, then please explain it. Hello again, 1. bitcoin is divisible, currently up to eight decimal places. There should be no problem with amount of bitcoins remaining in the bitcoin economy. For example, 1btc today could be equivalent to 0.001btc tomorrow. The total number of coins is not important. Whats important is active coins. 2. Hard fork is when there is a major change to the Bitcoin Coding (Protocol) and thus its splits into two blockchains. The new chain and the old chain. Old chains usually die off immediately. Some altcoins are hardforks of the Bitcoin Protocol. Bitcoiners are generally resistant to the idea of "lost" coins returning to be "re-mined", because it goes against the original spirit and intention of Bitcoin. Is the "old spirit" correct? Because it seems to me there are some improvements could be made. I ofc am clueless, but I am on the other hand a latecomer, journalist, and consumer. Yes, it is correct. Some improvements can and will be made, but not the type that fundamentally change the original intention of Bitcoin. The "old spirit" is what Bitcoin/bitcoin is. If we diverge from that, then Bitcoin/bitcoin is a failed experiment, because people want regulated credit systems and no personal responsibility. In time, you will understand that it is basically the reversal of the current world financial system, which to some is comforting and positive. |
|
|
|
This has been discussed many times.
1. What gives anyone the right to take coins that aren't their's merely because they haven't "moved? Who decides the time? If it is implemented, it will be easy to write software to move them every so often. So what is the point?
2. It is a hard fork, but If you want to try, fork Bitcoin (block chain and code) and convince miners and users to switch. You'll find most people want the freedom to save if they want and not have their savings stolen by people who want to control how they use their coins. But you are welcome to try. It would be a good demonstration to give people the choice.
:-)
1. Nothing. Nothing at all. It's theft. BUT alive users should be able to move their coins. And if it's implemented at the time of inception, they will be aware of this. It stops a portion of a finite resource becoming unusable. THAT's the point. 2. I have no idea what a hard fork is. If you have a point by bringing up a technical point, then please explain it. Hello again, 1. bitcoin is divisible, currently up to eight decimal places. There should be no problem with amount of bitcoins remaining in the bitcoin economy. For example, 1btc today could be equivalent to 0.001btc tomorrow. The total number of coins is not important. Whats important is active coins. 2. Hard fork is when there is a major change to the Bitcoin Coding (Protocol) and thus its splits into two blockchains. The new chain and the old chain. Old chains usually die off immediately. Some altcoins are hardforks of the Bitcoin Protocol. Bitcoiners are generally resistant to the idea of "lost" coins returning to be "re-mined", because it goes against the original spirit and intention of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Hello all, To preface, I am a newb  Can someone explain to me how unsafe unconfirmed transactions are please? What is the vulnerability? I have very little experience in this arena, but it seems like some sites (luckybit) can take an unconfirmed transaction and let you bet it on a drop, and other sites require a similarly small transaction to be confirmed. Why? Hello again. This should be helpful. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Confirmation |
|
|
|
Personally, I see bitcoin as a commodity currently, like gold, since using it as a "currency" has not reached mass adoption yet.
And there's the great big problem right there. It shouldn't be a commodity. It should be something to spend. I should burn a bloody hole in your pocket, just like your wages on payday! EDIT: I'm sorry, that was blunt. Your points are well taken. True, but i don't think we are there yet (as a currency), and thus we are still early bitcoin adopters. Currently, when bitcoin is traded in financial markets, its considered a commodity, and governments are currently seeing it as a commodity/property for tax purposes. But one day, that will flip, and it will be an established currency. No need to apologize. I agree with you, but something that only appreciates in value over time (in theory), is hard to part with. BTW, I have a very very little amount of btc, lol. |
|
|
|
OK, great, so I am absorbing something at least  So here's my issue....coming from the point of view of a clueless late-adopter - and like it or not, that is about 99% of people finding Bitcoin now, and in the foreseeable future: I look at Bitcoin and see early miners holding tens of thousands of Bitcoins. These people are among the most vocal in terms of saying that Bitcoin needs to be mass-adopted, but at the same time their advice, over and over again, is "HODL" (it took me a while to get that joke - took a fair bit of reading ). So they want people to use it but they don't want to spend it? So is it a currency or a bond or a form of pork-bellies or what? (again, that may be ill-phrased - I never did Economics 101). I come here, to Bitcointalk, where all the news breaks, and the community is active, and people are throwing around (so it seems!) Bitcoins (full ones!) here, there and everywhere. And so far, it seems impossible to even earn one. Advice given to newbies is "faucets". Meh. This is not attractive to a newb. Seems like a really good game is happening, but until you have an NFL medal, you're not ever going to get to play. And there are no more amateur teams, only pros now. Average Bob doesn't fit. I'm uneducated about this, and I **KNOW** I am, but I am trying to be the outside observer, specifically the newbie one. If the reward was increasing and I had 10K to blow (I wish I did) then yeah, I might invest it in a startup, a mining operation, something like that.....but right now? It's decreasing, and will continue to do so. What percentage of all possible Bitcoins have been mined and are moving? 50%? Why would I enter a world where 50% of all the wealth there will ever be is already held by a few?Again, I have to apologise, I might not be phrasing my questions properly or might be missing the point. Any help is really appreciated. I do like to learn new things Ist. First of all, I'm still a noob to Bitcoin in general. I found out about it during the price rise of November/December 2013, from an article on a financial website. Everything I am explaining to you is my understanding from reading the forums and etc. Whether correct or not. I do not have any coding or financial background. I am not an early adopter, in comparison to others, but I believe I still am, since it has not hit mass adoption yet. As to your question, "Why would I enter a world where 50% of all the wealth there will ever be is already held by a few?" is a valid question. You could also ask yourself if you should continue to participate in the current world system, since 99% of all wealth is held by the few. And the new wealth created (printed) in that system, doesn't make you richer, but actually, makes everyone poorer (through inflation). The idea behind Bitcoin, is a "currency" that can not be counterfeited, regulated, or government controlled. It is an experiment of a free "currency", for the free internet. If you "invest" or buy bitcoin now, you are basically stating that you think it is a worthy idea/innovation/technology that is just starting. Some have estimated that bitcoin could go for 10,000 USD, in the future. In fact, some financial people are betting on it. (Personally, I think could go for millions around 2080 or so). In theory, as time goes on, bitcoin will be worth more, since supply is limited and more people will want it. In theory. So, in theory, you want to own (or HODL) them now, before the mass adoption, since that is when it will become expensive, in comparison to now. Personally, I see bitcoin as a commodity currently, like gold, since using it as a "currency" has not reached mass adoption yet. |
|
|
|
...
Why is Bitcoin structured so that the amount of coins mined reduces? Would it not make more sense that the number would be low in the beginning and then rises with the difficulty? A sort of more work = more reward thing?
...
... OK, this makes quite alot of sense. But, and forgive me if my naivetee is getting in the way of sense here, wouldn't the whole deflationary concept still apply if people were aware the supply was finite? But it might have the effect of being a bit more accessible to the people who came late to the party. Sorry, that is not clear, let me be a windbag explain... As I understand it: - Miners secure the network, and process transactions. But as it is at the moment, there's NO attraction to being a miner AT ALL. It costs tens of thousands to even get into the game, and you're gambling that the Bitcoins you MIGHT mine (if you're lucky) will keep enough value that your hardware will eventually pay itself off. I would love to see how many new investors go down the mining route. Seems to me that the miners are the early adopters. So the less attractive mining gets, the less that enter the activity and the more that drop out, unable anymore to keep up with the constant demand for new hardware, rising power costs, and lowering rewards (again, assuming Bitcoin doesn't explode). Wouldn't this lead to an ever-decreasing number of miners, and the ultimate threat of a 51% situation? Sorry, as I was typing that, I guess I realised that what I am asking is this: As a non-early adopter, why would I bother to go into mining. And why would it make sense to anyone else?I might not be making sense here, due to my general ignorance, as Stephen Fry would phrase it Your understanding is basically correct. The only thing is that as miners leave (for whatever reason) the difficultly lowers (readjustment) and becomes easier to mine again, so thus miners can jump back in. It is like a see-saw. The Bitcoin Protocol will keep "self adjusting" so that everything goes as designed at a constant rate. But yes, currently, it is not profitable for new users to mine or attempt to mine. Most bitcoin users today are not miners. Those days are over. The miners are basically gigantic farms with tens of millions invested. They are the future of mining now. As with the 51% attack, that gets more complicated. One thing to keep in mind is that if the 51% attack happens, the miner(s) who performed it basically killed bitcoin, thus making it worthless, thus they lose all their money. It is not very profitable to do this. In theory, all miners want to work together, if one doesn't, everyone loses, even the 51% attacker. In theory. To answer your question: No one person will be mining (in a profitable way) anymore, those days are over, unless bitcoin crashes. And it does not make sense for any new user to mine. Bitcoin is basicly in a Phase 2 situation now, where now regular people need to get it and use it as "currency". Phase 1 was the early adopters and miners, amongst themselves. |
|
|
|
...
Why is Bitcoin structured so that the amount of coins mined reduces? Would it not make more sense that the number would be low in the beginning and then rises with the difficulty? A sort of more work = more reward thing?
...
First, as bitcoin is mined, over time the amount of bitcoin entering the ecosystem reduces. This is called the "miners reward". This was designed intentionally to created a "currency" that is deflationary or some think dis-inflationary. As time passes and less bitcoins are released into the ecosystem (making them rarer), the price for a bitcoin should rise (making each more valuable). This is the opposite of the current world banking system. As world governments make (or print) more money and release it into the ecosystem, the more products cost to purchase. In inflation, prices for products go up over time, in relation to a steady fiat ($1). In deflation, prices for products go down over time, in relation to a steady bitcoin (1btc). Second, low amount of bitcoins in the beginning and more bitcoins later, would be what the current world currency system is. (Low to High) Bitcoin is an experiment in the opposite. (High to Low) Third, Bitcoin is designed to release a steady amount of bitcoins into the ecosystem at a constant rate (averaging around 10 minutes). No matter how many miners work, or how powerful they are, Bitcoin is designed to "readjust" to "balance out" again, to regain to 10 minute constant. Basically, it is a steady decentralized release of "currency" into the world, in a deflationary manner, to guarantee that over time, each bitcoin is more valuable. Current system is a unsteady centralized release of "currency" into the world, in a inflationary manner, to guarantee that over time, each USD/EUR is less valuable. |
|
|
|
We see articles guestimating the number of Bitcoin users. A general average seems to be about 1.5M currently.
1.5 M is too low....as Coinbase has has 2 million unique users and 2.6 million wallets right now and they only exist in a few countries and not the largest market -China. Thus the most conservative estimate would be 4 million bitcoin adopters worldwide to as high as ~10 million. I think those numbers are way too optimistic. I think the actual numbers of individual users are between 900,000 and 1,005,000. An extremely optimistic number now, one address per user, would currently be around 4,309,000. |
|
|
|
|
If no one (exchange, company, individual investor) ever announces they won the two other groups of BTC,
I would like to bet that one of the two winners, or maybe both, are Government Proxies, for whatever reasons they would have.
For example, it would be beneficial for a USG agency to have BTC on hand for future setups/stings with Silkroad, terrorism, or other.
So if this becomes a mystery forever, I say 50% chance its a USG Agency.
|
|
|
|
Hi guys, I'm new to bitcoin talk, and I just found out they're certain ranks in this forum. from newbie to legendary. currently,I'm a newbie, can you guys give me some tips too "level up" quickly. Thanks alot Sorry but your "level" is based upon how long you have been an active member and the number of your posts. You can not level up quickly. This link should basically help you. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=237597.0And this link. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178608.0 |
|
|
|
...
The point is that maybe there is a way of having a proof-of-work that uses the computational processing power in a more interesting way.
...
There are altcoins that are doing what you have proposed. Here is one example: http://primecoin.io/ |
|
|
|
When BTC started, nobody had any and it was worthless, so it was right to give away thousands of BTC to make it popular. All that has changed. Now that BTC's worth something, now that companies are building on BTC, now that serious business transactions are made with bitcoin, it's about time for faucets to adapt.
BTC is real. It's money, and you've got to work to earn some. I hope all faucets will disappear in 2015. Faucets are hurting bitcoin by making some people believing you can get it while doing nothing sitting in your home. No, BTC isn't like that, and it shouldn't be any easier to get than any fiat currency. Even for small amounts.
New potential users of BTC need a way to get their hands on some BTC, even if it is pennies or less. Not only will it introduce them to learn and test out how wallets, addresses, private keys, transactions, and etc work, but it will allow them to participate and explore BTCs potential in a safe, non-scammy, or potentially dangerous (localbitcoins meetup) way. One of the problems with adoption is that average people have a hard time getting their hands on it easily. Faucets, I believe, are still an important factor in adoption. Faucets will always exist (even around 2140) until/unless Governments consider them money transmitters or gambling, IMO. |
|
|
|
Anything truly important/revolutionary that Cryptonote does, can be rolled into Bitcoin in the future if necessary.
It won't be copy & paste protocol, but can be implemented.
Satoshi created the Bitcoin Whitepaper.
If CryptoNote is more toward what Satoshi intended as a coin, then Satoshi would have outlined/designed that, instead.
There is nothing in CryptoNote that Satoshi could not have envisioned and implemented at the time.
Satoshi's initial creation of Bitcoin was very buggy. Gavin actually cleaned up most of the Bitcoin code. For example, when Bitcoin first came out, there was a bug that allowed for unlimited creations of Bitcoins.. So, Satoshi is/was not perfect. Besides, getting back on topic. I *like* Bitcoin's transparent blockchain. If it had anonymity from the start it'd be a different story, but anything other than transparent now and it'd seem dubious. While at that, I also *like* cryptonote for it's *dual functions*, I'm new at it but Monero seems like the leader currency there. Ok, Post Count 4 Sockpuppet who likes/uses Monero. Thanks for your chime in over here at Bitcoin Discussion. I said I liked cryptonote even though I just got introduced to it. Doesn't make me a sockpuppet, Lol? You obviously are new to the cryptoscene, come back when you actually know what Satoshi's original code for Bitcoin looked like. Hint: It was messy. Interesting you know so much about it. Why don't you tell me with your non-sockpuppet account? |
|
|
|
Anything truly important/revolutionary that Cryptonote does, can be rolled into Bitcoin in the future if necessary.
It won't be copy & paste protocol, but can be implemented.
Satoshi created the Bitcoin Whitepaper.
If CryptoNote is more toward what Satoshi intended as a coin, then Satoshi would have outlined/designed that, instead.
There is nothing in CryptoNote that Satoshi could not have envisioned and implemented at the time.
Satoshi's initial creation of Bitcoin was very buggy. Gavin actually cleaned up most of the Bitcoin code. For example, when Bitcoin first came out, there was a bug that allowed for unlimited creations of Bitcoins.. So, Satoshi is/was not perfect. Besides, getting back on topic. I *like* Bitcoin's transparent blockchain. If it had anonymity from the start it'd be a different story, but anything other than transparent now and it'd seem dubious. While at that, I also *like* cryptonote for it's *dual functions*, I'm new at it but Monero seems like the leader currency there. Ok, Post Count 4 Sockpuppet who likes/uses Monero. Thanks for your chime in over here at Bitcoin Discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
