 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
Any half decent modern wallet will be able to provide you with essentially as many addresses as you want. I can't necessarily say the same for all wallets from back in 2014. Do you know the name of the wallet you were using back then? Are you still using it?
Most wallets these days which are not Bitcoin Core are what is known as hierarchical deterministic wallets. They provide you with a seed phrase, also known as a recovery phrase or mnemonic phrase, which is a list of usually 12 or 24 words. These words back up your entire wallet, and addresses are generated deterministically from these words. By that we mean that the same words will always reproduce the same addresses in the same order. So if you write down your 12 or 24 words, then that effectively backs up every address in your wallet, including ones you haven't generated yet. Theoretically, one set of words could generate trillions of trillions of trillions of addresses, although obviously no one would ever need that many.
Bitcoin Core does not use seed phrases to generate addresses, and so if you are using Bitcoin Core instead of backing up your seed phrase you need to back up your wallet.dat file.
It was MultiBit classic (it was probably just MultiBit back then). I'm not using it as it's been abandoned, I've imported my private keys into electrum, and I'm still trying to consolidate all my inputs in a new SegWit wallet (I'm in no hurry though, but with the current prices it would cost me the equivalent of $150). Sorry for the late reply! |
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the replies. I've already consolidated the largest inputs, so I'm OK from that point of view. The idea of paying almost $100 in BTC to consolidate the remaining inputs is a bit crazy to me, so I'll just wait until the fees go down. I know pretty much nothing of these new improvements, would Schnoor and Taproot have any affect on transactions done with a legacy address (so not SegWit)?
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately I didn't really make a graph of minmempool fees but from my experience, the minimum fees tends to fluctuate at about 5 to 6 sat/vbyte.
The lowest transaction which I have confirmed so far is about 8sat/vbyte. On weekends, I use 10sat/vbyte for a fairly high probability. Would it be better to use mempool.space and see if you can find a suitable compromise?
** I don't exactly recommend people to switch servers for the sole purpose of getting lower transactions broadcasted. Reason being, even if you're able to push the TX through, it doesn't guarantee good propagation.
I've created a transaction at the end of January with 5.3 sat/byte and it went through in something like 30 minutes. The fees seem to have increased since then. Since your goal is consolidate outputs and you're not in hurry, i would recommend you to do it later when it's possible to broadcast transaction with 1 sat/vbyte.
The trouble is I have no idea when (even if) that will be possible |
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to consolidate ~90 outputs from an old old Multibit wallet into a new SegWit wallet I've created. I basically want to move those over with the lowest possible fees. The total fee for doing that with a 2sat/byte fee is 0.27mBTC (15USD), which is acceptable. I've created a transaction with a 2 sat/byte fee (took a while to find a server that didn't reject because it was too low), but didn't go through in over 1 week. I then increased it to 3 sat/byte, but it still doesn't seem to be closer and it's always more than 100MB from the tip. Any idea how low of a value I could use that would go through eventually with a good probability? I'm in no hurry at all with this. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Even if you do that, anyone curious enough will be easily able to find out the total amount of BTC you have in your wallet, as it's all public. Only if they know all your addresses, which is only possible if you have either linked all your addresses together by using them together in the same transaction, or if you have told someone all your addresses. There is no way just by looking at an address to find out which other addresses are part of the same wallet. If I have 10 BTC on Address A, and 0.1 BTC on Address B, and I send you 0.01 BTC from Address B, then all you will know is that I had 0.1 BTC on Address B. You will only be able to discover that I also own 10 BTC on another address if I also make a transaction (either previously or in the future) which uses coins from both Address A and Address B together. If you take care not to link your address together like this, and otherwise don't tell people which addresses you own or reveal your wallet details/public keys/etc., then your privacy is maintained. OK, now it all makes sense. Previously (7 years ago), I've only used a single wallet address for everything - I thought you'd need a different wallet to get a new address. Thanks for the clarification. |
|
|
|
If you have an exceptionally large amount of bitcoin, it can feel a bit overwhelming to know that your entire balance is being included in that 0.0002 BTC transaction. It's also terrible for your privacy to have all your bitcoin in a single output for a small transaction like this. Do you really want the guy selling you coffee or the guy you are trading $50 worth of bitcoin with to see an input of 10 BTC and know that you are holding that much? You don't want to reveal the entire balance of your bank account every time you buy groceries, and you don't want to do the same thing with bitcoin. As you say, it's better to have different wallets for different purposes. Some form of cold wallet (be that hardware, paper, airgapped) to hold the majority of your funds very securely, and then a hot wallet such as on your computer or phone with a smaller amount of bitcoin for regular spending. Even better to try to keep the two unlinked in terms of blockchain analysis by using mixers or coinjoins so you also have plausible deniability in the case of a $5 wrench attack. Regarding you "bank account" argument, many inputs/outputs wouldn't help with hiding your overall worth, right? Even if you do that, anyone curious enough will be easily able to find out the total amount of BTC you have in your wallet, as it's all public. The only way to prevent this would be to have separated wallets, right? So I get the argument of not wanting to send 100BTC in each transaction, but that won't for the privacy of your wallet net worth. Unless I misunderstood something. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks everyone. It's all clear to me now.
|
|
|
|
you should consolidate them by spending them all when the transaction fees are lower. It's typically lower on Sundays and you should be able to get it confirmed for a reasonable fee.
I agree. If it were me, and I wasn't planning on using any of the bitcoins in the next week or two, then I'd probably create a single transaction that spent EVERY output that had a value greater than 0. 000003 BTC. Then I'd create 1 (or perhaps a few depending on total value) new output paying a transaction fee of 0. 00000001 per byte (or perhaps per 2-bytes). I'd set it up as a "Use Replace-By-Fee" (just in case I decide to bump the fee a bit after a few days), and Batch RBF. Then just wait for it to confirm. Could take a week or more. I'm not sure if Electrum re-broadcasts after a while to keep it fresh in the mempools, but if not then I'd re-broadcast once every few days. Then when fees are higher (10's or 100's of satoshis per byte), you'll be able to send a lot cheaper. Is this information reliable - https://bitcoinfees.earn.com ? If I understood correctly, that means that a 1 sat/byte transaction would get confirmed in maximum 11 hours (estimated by whoever manages the site). When you say re-broadcast every few days, how exactly do I do that? And why would I need more than 1 output depending of the total value? Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the help.
So, I've discovered the coins tab and I was able to select a single input to use for my transaction. Is the default behaviour to select all possible inputs? There were lots of entries available that were larger than the sum I want to transfer, but the wallet decided to use them all for the transaction.
In my case, does it make sense to do that and manually select an input when I want to make a transfer? Since the fee/byte is so large right now. Is there any downside to doing that?
|
|
|
|
|
I have an old bitcoin wallet (Multibit) which I've ported over to Electrum using private key import.
I want to make a transfer of a small sum (around 1mBTC), but the fees I get are really high and that seems to be due to the large size of my payload (12KB with 86 inputs). The inputs seem to contain some of the transactions I already have in my history.
What I see is:
Inputs
0142...:36 myaddress sum1
57 more like the above
Outputs
SCRIPT 20985...
myaddress amount_id_have_left_after_transaction
A previous transaction I made 7 years ago just has 1 input and 2 outputs.
Why are all those transactions referenced as inputs? Has there been some sort of protocol change and this is necessary for some reason?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
