Why not hash160(txout.scriptPubKey)? I had assumed from the beginning that's what we'd be doing. "Addresses" are a UI issue - the protocol should only concern itself with scripts.

Each "numChildren" value (after the SumValue) can be exactly one byte, because you never have more than 256 ptrs, and each child pointer is also exactly 1 byte.  If you want to jump to a particular child, for instance, you are at node "11" and want to go the child at 3, you simply do iter->Seek("11"+"3") and it will skip "1122" and put the iterator right at "1137", which is the first database value >= "113".

Furthermore, you might be able to get away without even any pointers!  You might just store the node/leaf hash and value, and know about children after the fact, simply by continuing your iteration.  You are at IterA, and IterB=IterA.Next().   You know that IterB is a child node of IterA because IterB.key().startswith(IterA.key()).   That's stupid simple.  

So, you know what level you're at simply by looking at Iter.size()
So, you know that you are a child because IterNext.key().startswith(IterPrev.key()).
If the previous check fails, you know you finished traversing that branch and you can update IterPrev.

Though, there may be something I'm missing that would still require you to store the pointers.  But it's still a lot better than storing 6-8 bytes per pointer, which was originally where I thought the bulk of the data was originally going to end up.

My knowledge is incomplete on this

Thank you ThomasV. I used the console to do as you described and it worked out fine for me. I reset my password.

I'd like to ask. Is this not a security threat. I mean, can't anybody reset my password like this?

I have a strange behaviour the first time now. I have a transaction that shows at electrum.no-ip.org, electrum.bysh.me and electrum.datemas.de as it has 0 confirmations. But when i check the same transaction id on blockchain.info it has 2 confs already.
First i thought a server isnt up to date but so many servers? The tid is:
Till now electrum was always as fast as blockchain.info.

getaddresshistory("1GFEJMUeeAWcsvhnTXmGyf5NdKaqfymbou")

Does it mean that transactions below the priority cannot be propagated at all or that these transactions cannot be propagated without a fee?

my understanding was that the user determines the fee and that it can differ from the suggested fee.

If this truly is the case, then how does Electrum determine the appropriate fee,

why does it not show it and why is it not just a suggestion?

Hi folks!
(I love this client)

I have a question about the behaviour of change/prioritize addresses.
I had some bitcoins in 3 imported addresses and some in a Electron address; i wanted to use the coins in imported addresses, so I prioritize them and made the payment. There were some returned bitcoins and they were put in an imported address instead of a change address. Why? Is it because the imported address was prioritize? Is it possible avoid this?

Thanks.
Sorry my orrible English.

Transaction doesn't show up on https://blockexplorer.com/ either.

Also transaction doesn't show up in other people bitcoin clients

Is there a way to send multiple transactions in one transaction like its possible in original client? maybe using ; in between addresses and values? I wondered how refunds could be done with least work possible and without having to pay a fee for each transaction. For that it would be good to have such possibility. The help buttons doesnt mention such.

Im not sure if its an error too but often when i go to receive tab all the settings are gone about how big the columns are and so on. So that i have to click everywhere to get it back. But its only sometimes, on other times it shows the settings from before. I didnt find when it happens that its set back.

Hey, I observed the exact same thing yesterday. Didn't have time to further investigate.
It eventually (as soon as the next block was resolved, I believe) went through without having to re-create the transaction.

Hi Thomas, thank you for this wallet, I have really enjoyed it from an aesthetic perspective so far.

Given that a lot of people are likely to start creating wallets on a very simple device right after an OS install (debian netboot or similar), would it be wise to increase the system entropy somehow and collect randomness in a method similar to that used by GnuPG?

Thanks again for your work with the wallet!

Can any one help me with any knowledge on which classes takes care of tx history. I want to create functions to seacrh through them. thank you for the help in advance.

history()

wallet.get_tx_history()

Case for example:

1) I send some bitcoins to someone
2) Transaction shows as pending in my Electrum, and also shows up as unconfirmed on blockchain.info
3) I send some more bitcoins to someone else (before the first transaction confirms)
4) 2nd transaction shows as pending also in my Electrum

However only the 1st transaction shows up in the blockchain at blockchain.info or blockexplorer.   Until after the first transaction has been confirmed a few times then the second transaction randomly appears...

So person #2 thinks that I have not yet sent them anything, because the transaction appears only in my Electrum, but no one else on the network sees it yet.

It can be especially annoying if you need to send funds to lots of different people in quick succession.

Can anyone explain what is the deal with the missing/hiding transaction #2?

Hm... i signed a message with electrum. Then i wanted to check out the message with verify. Unfortunately it always says only: "Wallet instance has no attribute 'verify_message'"

Well it's been about two weeks or so since I've received these very special tiny coins...

Still, when I want to transfer them from Electrum, it forces me to use a transaction fee.

How old do these coins have to be before I can set a zero transaction fee ?

Thanks

D