Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2019, 03:46:20 PM *
News: 10th anniversary art contest
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 [87] 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 ... 189 »
1721  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Concerns regarding SegWit + Lightning Network? on: December 21, 2017, 06:29:24 PM
The problem I see with the "just not use LN" argument, is that once Lightning network is widespread and we have channels all over the world filling flocks with all these microtransactions, the overall on-chain fee will be higher than ever, at some point it will be non-viable for most people to transact on-chain. For people using LN, it wouldn't matter, as their transactions will eventually go into a block mixed with the rest of LN transactions (btw, who sets the fee for an "LN-tx filled block"?) but for people that want to transact on-chain, it will be extremely expensive, unless im missing something here.

PS: Im not saying "make blocks bigger as soon as they get filled" and such nonsense are a solution, im just pointing out at how widespread LN usage could lead to unusable on-chain transactions.
What? No! That is not how LN works. There won't be "filling blocks with all these microtransactions" because the microtransactions are happening off chain. LN moves transactions off chain so there will be more block space for other transactions. Fees should be lower with LN, not higher.

No, I may not have been clear with my post.

I am obviously aware that LN transactions are happening off-chain, but then these off-chain transactions converge within a block and get settled blockchain. So what im claiming is: when LN gets widespread, the rate at which these blocks get filled with off-chain transactions will be faster.
Also, people opening and closing LN channels will lead to on-chain usage too.

Eventually I don't see how this wouldn't lead to higher fees for those using on-chain.

Sure, we'll have a period of lower fees once segwit + people using LN for smaller transactions kick in, but eventually the current block space wouldn't cut it for those wanting to transact on-chain.

How far are we from that? who knows. With the fake spam it's hard to evaluate actual usage. We will just need to wait and see how the mempool looks like with a widespread LN and segwit I guess.
1722  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Concerns regarding SegWit + Lightning Network? on: December 21, 2017, 04:43:18 PM

In general, each user will have several open Lightning channels and that should all be handled by the client you are running. Even with several open channels, while each channel may not be able to make a single large purchase, it is possible for you to make a large payment by sending money through multiple channels.

While there may be several large hubs, it certainly does not introduce that much centralization. Hubs can't change the amount of money that you have and can't dictate anything that you do. If a hub is misbehaving, you can simply stop using them and use someone else or just not use LN.


The problem I see with the "just not use LN" argument, is that once Lightning network is widespread and we have channels all over the world filling flocks with all these microtransactions, the overall on-chain fee will be higher than ever, at some point it will be non-viable for most people to transact on-chain. For people using LN, it wouldn't matter, as their transactions will eventually go into a block mixed with the rest of LN transactions (btw, who sets the fee for an "LN-tx filled block"?) but for people that want to transact on-chain, it will be extremely expensive, unless im missing something here.

PS: Im not saying "make blocks bigger as soon as they get filled" and such nonsense are a solution, im just pointing out at how widespread LN usage could lead to unusable on-chain transactions.
1723  Economy / Exchanges / Re: CEX.IO - Unconfirmed Transaction over hours on: December 21, 2017, 04:35:49 PM
CEX. IO attaches really small transaction amount per byte as 240 satoshi / byte. Transactions are not taking place.

Customer service is not available at all, the never reply back.

User: up113011255

I don't get why exchanges don't allow people to select their own sat/byte fee amounts. Give us the chance to get our money faster, because sometimes it sucks trying to get the coins out, as you basically depend on costumer service when this happens... what do you expect us to say? We can't do anything for you.

The only thing you can do is go on reddit and expose their lack of customer support. Public shamming is very effective for it damages their brands if they don't get their shit together.
1724  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcore synchronization on: December 21, 2017, 02:59:32 PM
I have setup bitcore on my server below here is my server and software configuration

Server :

         Os centos-release-7-4.1708.el7.centos.x86_64
          Space 2TB
          Ram 16 GB

Version :
            Npm 2.15.11
            nvm  0.33.4
            node 4.8.7

All above installation done successfully, also i have install bitcore and also Syncing 100% after that i have face below error

Error :

EXCEPTION: St12out_of_range
CInv::GetCommand(): type=1073741825 unknown type
bitcoin in ProcessMessages()

Any one have idea please guide me



What is Bitcore? are you talking about Bitcore, or about this altcoin called "Bitcore?"

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcore/

Even if it is a fork of Bitcoin Core, im not sure this is the place to ask about this. Ask on the Bitcore thread. Or in here, and btw some other people had your same problem:

https://forum.bitcore.io/t/bitcore-exception/1639

no replies tho.
1725  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How to find out what kind of princelet bitcoin Wallet file? on: December 21, 2017, 02:22:09 PM
People! There are help files wallet.but dat don't know what cryptocurrency it belongs? How do you know?

Unfortunately... I don't think you can't know. I had this problem because I saved a bunch of different wallet.dat from old coins that I was mining in the early days when I was learning how to mine (so I used low difficulty altcoins that I could mine with a GPU) and ended up with a bunch wallet.dat

When you put a wallet.dat of LTC in Bitcoin Core's folder for example, strange things happen, your funds actually show up ar least they used to, but it was a glitch.

So you will need to remember what coins you had and test them out until you find what is what. Next time make a folder for each separate wallet.dat with the name of the coin that it belongs to.
1726  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: How To Make Money From The Bitcoin Crash on: December 20, 2017, 07:06:21 PM
I am sorry but you lost the opportunity this time mate. It was yesterday a great time to grab bitcoin when it traded in less than $15K now it's price accelerated once again to above $17K.
No one exactly knows when the market will crash and when will it reach to a new peak. You just have to guess it from the situation and take advantage of it.

We will see... as long as we stay above $15k, I feel confident about a new time high in no more than a week, but if we keep diping, things could get troublesome. The only thing that has changed fundamentals wise, is the BCH drama that has unleashed in the past few hours, this should be short lived as always. Once the market deals with this (usually takes around 48h) we can re-evaluate the situation. If we are still holding strong above $16.5k, I would be inclined to go for a new ATH.
1727  Other / Meta / Re: Ideas for improving post quality? on: December 20, 2017, 06:48:14 PM

I've told him numerous times workload needs to be distributed between staff and that we also need another admin for this as there's far too many people who have been waiting months to get their accounts back even with verifiable info posted. There's also dozens of other things that need looking into that never get sorted as well. If he doesn't trust anyone else to do it for whatever reason he should consider paying himself a reasonable wage and do administration duties himself full-time as it's badly needed and the forum's problems grow worse every day.

He should definitely hire extra people to take care of the account recovery demands. The queue of people wanting their account back is growing at exponential levels, two people can't take care of an huge community. By not delegating you end up creating a mess.

I don't see where the problem of trust is. The user that losses an account, signs a message from an address that belongs to the hacked or lost account in a post that's unedited or in a closed thread. This is all public for everyone to see, so there's no possibility of scam there, the person either controls the private key or doesn't. The person hired for the job would only need to verify the signature and then give access to the account to through the new requested email. The user recovers his account and stops cluttering the meta section, everyone is happy.

I would like to apply for that job myself. I run a safe node on a linux machine which I could use to verify all the signatures.
1728  Economy / Speculation / Re: BTC recovering on: December 20, 2017, 04:51:35 PM
As it was not an attack on BTC (any BCH pump seems very suspicious for me) that can be concidered as a some kind of correction after a pretty big growth. I'm sure that it is pretty good and it will help from  the psychological side: a lot of people are waiting for the end of this year to see the final BTC rate and they can easily  dump it especially if it is uncorrected. If bitcoin will continue its slow growth it will just make the situation more calm.

Both things converged: A correction was due naturally, as we were under a massive bullrun, and the BCash manipulation with the mempool spam and the Coinbase bribing to list it right during the difficulty adjustment to create as much confusion as possible, also was a way to create a dip while dump a very pumped BCash. The whales just want to accumulate as much BTC as possible, since they are scared that LN is working, and will solve the scaling issue once and for all.
1729  Economy / Speculation / Re: inside trading at coinbase? on: December 20, 2017, 04:33:38 PM
Something weird definitely happened last night. Notice it once again happened during mempool spam:

https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#30d

and during readjustment of the blocks:

https://fork.lol/

Couple with strange twitter action:

http://bitcoinist.com/cnbc-collusion-roger-ver-bcash/

I hope they find out really what happened. EVERY time that block readjustments happen on Bitcoin, something shady goes on with BCH.
1730  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Is the only difference between BTC and BCC the 8 MB block? on: December 20, 2017, 04:19:32 PM
BCH was done to prevent Segwit and the Bitcoin Cash lightning network will work in a different way.
Also you cannot cancel transactions on Bitcoin Cash, so you can do 0 confirmation transactions.

The only reason Bitcoin Cash works thus far is because nobody uses it. If it were to be working at scale (that is, full blocks) people running nodes would get kicked out of the network, eventually leading only to datacenters running the BCH network. Also 0 confirmation transactions would once again be nonviable, unless they keep raising the blocksize forever, guaranteeing there are only a couple nodes worldwide. At that point your coin is nothing but a Paypal with a token, and that is exactly what Roger Ver wants. BCH's whole scaling roadmap is an one way ticket to centralization, which is funny because this is what they say about LN.
1731  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin setting records, $19.8k and half a million blocks milestone on: December 19, 2017, 03:51:47 PM
these past days we have had a new ATH $19,892 for price on Coinbase which is a phenomenal record in history of bitcoin.

but that is not the only one. in case you missed it, recently block #500,000 [1] was mined. that is half a million blocks mined. and with Genesis block [2] on 2009-01-03 that is nearly 9 years of bitcoin being around and still going strong despite all the naysayers and doomsday machines repeating obituaries for bitcoin all this time.

congratulations to all of us pioneers. the early adopters who are starting at the ground floor.

[1] https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000024fb37364cbf81fd49cc2d51c09c75c35433c3a1945d04
[2] https://blockchain.info/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f
Don't worry, the price won't hold at this level for a long period of time.  It is already trying really really hard to maintain the current level.



Look at the graph, you can see constant dumps and then uplifts, just an attempt by the big fishes to take out as much money as possible out of this bubble. It won't be a big new if BTC goes below 14K$ within a week.

There's nothing that points to a correction on that graph, in fact it looks pretty good, just looks an asset having less volatility.

If you actually go into trading view instead of looking at some lame coinmarketcap.com chart, you can apply TA, and technicals don't look bad to me, in fact im expecting a couple weeks of upside to above $20,000.


But even if it goes the other way and goes below $14,000, is still not a big deal, people with a lot of money want to get big position in bitcoin. When you see a "crash" someone else with a lot of cash is seeing an opportunity, and you don't want to be selling the dips.
1732  Other / Meta / Re: Ideas for improving post quality? on: December 19, 2017, 02:59:14 PM
Terminate all signatures altogether and the problem will go away instantaneously. Keep the banner ads. No incentivizing to post means there will be much less fluff and more on point and concise conversations. As it stands now, it's all artificially inflated chit-chat with zero value.


You already said that and I already applied some logic as to why that is a mistake, I would like a counterargument to my thesis instead of simply repeating yourself:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2605767.msg26559219#msg26559219

Like I said, apply game theory. SEO is SEO, and we don't want Roger Ver ranking bitcoin dot com's forum as the first bitcoin forum that shows up when you google "bitcoin forum". Bitcoin is only going to keep getting more popular, once the (real) mainstream arrives, you want this forum on top, not his.

Add sections to the forum where signature campaigns are not allowed for high level discussion and leave the rest as it is, ban obvious 100-post-a-day 3rd worlders: forum becomes tolerable and everyone is happy. Maybe add a newbie jail again too.

What needs the most priority right now is account recovery. We can't have 2 guys taking care of that only, leaving people waiting for ages to get their accounts back. The meta section is filled with people posting address signatures and waiting to be recovered. I wouldn't like to be on their shoes seeing how unreliable the system is.

Okay here are a couple of ideas that I could think of:

1. Start banning users that post 5+ posts a day that can be termed as spam.

2. Require unique phone number authentication for every user.


1. You could post 20 times and still wouldn't be spam if it isn't spam. If you are having a conversation replying back and forth with someone on a thread the count can easily go up for example. I post in other forums where I make 0 money and this is the case (I post way more there than here). Please don't ruin the forum for everyone else.

2. Nonsense. Bitcoin is supposed to be anon friendly, this forum should remain anon friendly as well.

1733  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Does reusing addresses lower fees? on: December 19, 2017, 02:06:15 PM
Quote
The simple formula for compressed addresses is this:
Transaction size = (Number of Inputs * 148 bytes) + (Number of Outputs * 34 bytes) + 10 bytes


The simple formula for (older) uncompressed addresses is this:
Transaction size = (Number of Inputs * 180 bytes) + (Number of Outputs * 34 bytes) + 10 bytes

Thanks, this will be handy. What are the differences between compressed and uncompressed addresses, since when did Core implement this change? Also is it wallet dependent, or address dependent?

For example, a 2011 address will be sent as a compressed one in the latest version of Core, or it will be sent as uncompressed because it was created as uncompresed?

The simple formula for compressed addresses is this:
Transaction size = (Number of Inputs * 148 bytes) + (Number of Outputs * 34 bytes) + 10 bytes


The simple formula for (older) uncompressed addresses is this:
Transaction size = (Number of Inputs * 180 bytes) + (Number of Outputs * 34 bytes) + 10 bytes
-snip-

I also want to add that you should switch to SegWit (either native or P2SH nested) if you want to save on fees. Their transaction sizes have a lower weight then legacy transactions (compress/uncompressed), giving them a smaller virtual transaction size. A SegWit transaction with 1 input and 2 outputs has a virtual size of 140 bytes, which is significantly lower than transacting with legacy. SegWit is also a lot smaller if you have a large number of inputs. For instance, I just made this SegWit transaction, which has 39 inputs and 1 output (I was consolidating my inputs). That transaction has a virtual size of 2538 bytes, compared to 5816 bytes if I was using compressed addresses, or 7064 bytes if I was using uncompressed. I'm using P2WPKH (nested SegWit addresses) as there's better support for them, but I believe bech32 (native) is even smaller than P2WPKH.

I have my cold storage on legacy addresses, due the "anyone can spend" exploit possibility of funds being stolen. Call me crazy paranoid if you want.
1734  Economy / Economics / Re: About Cloud mining sites on: December 18, 2017, 06:27:47 PM
Nope. There's a 17-18% difficulty increase today or soon, dunno. Are they going to spend millions on more machines to keep up or a few grand on Facebook ads to draw in more people to keep paying you until it collapses? The latter is rather more likely.

Cloud mining's track record is dismal and it's obvious why. As a business model it simply cannot be sustained unless you turn ponzi.

If there is no way to make profit on Cloud mining (I have at least personally never seen reported gains from cloud mining) then how come all these services stay afloat and don't go bankrupt?

I think cloud mining can work in the context of altcoins. If you hire online machines to mine some altcoin with speculative purposes before the rest of the world catches up, it could work (for example, some people made a fortune cloud mining coins like DOGE or AUR back then), but cloud mining for the big established coins, I just don't see how it's viable.
1735  Other / Meta / Re: Ideas for improving post quality? on: December 18, 2017, 05:39:24 PM
Quote
- Removing signatures or sig ads globally.

This will fix everything. Just do it.

I've already explained why this is a fatal idea if you apply game theory. Just imagine what would happen if the niche of the signature campaigns service in exchange of BTC payments was removed here. If you know who Roger Ver is, think of what he wants to do with his forum: Exactly, rank it above bitcointalk, same thing as ranking his /r/btc subreddit above /r/bitcoin. He has already managed to rank his website above bitcoin.org in some countries.

The massive influx of people in here would go to his forum (and he has the resources to advertise it to capitalize on all of that traffic), ranking it up better than this forum, because Google doesn't care what the traffic is as long as it's legit traffic of real people, and that influx of third worlders registering in your forum is literally a goldmine when it comes to SEO. And a lot of these third worlders actually stick to their local forums which is ok, the ones that spam broken english 100 times a day... just ban them as usual, but overall, all things considered, a global removal of the sig campaign niche could be fatal for the SEO of the site. It also ruins it for the people that actually post like a normal person and get some side money on BTC. These campaigns stimulate the Bitcoin economy redistributing coins. Just keep the obvious 100-post-a-day shitposters away and the forum is pretty tolerable. Also you can do like me and bookmark who you want to follow and just ignore the rest (for example I have gmaxwell bookmarked and check his posts... etc)

My proposition is the "experts only" section. We have here a ton of Core devs and other smart people. A special section, similar to the Bitcoin mailing list, with no sig campaigns allowed there, would give more prestige to the forum while still retaining all the huge SEO points thanks to the organic traffic of normal non expert people/newbies trying to learn that find this forum due said SEO.

1736  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: BTC CRAZY FEE on: December 18, 2017, 02:10:32 PM
Is there a way to send BTC anywhere without paying huge fees ?



Well you could use segwit transactions, I've never used segwit yet, but recently my normal BTC transaction took me $5, I think with segwit transactions should be less than $1 but don't quote me on that. I don't really know at what ratio segwit transaction is cheaper than legacy.

Unfortunately most wallets still don't have easy to use GUI for segwit format, and big corps like Coinbase still don't have segwit support yet, so until that happens, fees will not go any lower.
1737  Economy / Speculation / Re: When the market cap hits 1,000,000,000,000, what will be the BitCoin Price? on: December 18, 2017, 01:54:21 PM
Will not happen

Too soon to even say that. For a week now we haven't touched sub-$15k and the support levels are sitting pretty at $14k ready to up the sell orders if shit hits the fan. There are still numerous events that could possibly generate positive hype which in turn would create FOMO and crazy price jumps. You're kinda underestimating bitcoin's shock potential. 2017 has been a shock for everyone, and $1-T market cap isn't far from being breached either.

Lmao you don't know who is proudhon right? he is the biggest FUD trainwreck ever. Has been saying Bitcoin wouldn't go over $10 or something like that. He became a bear legend since the early days. He has been announcing the doom of Bitcoin ever since. If you think kwukduck is a big bear troll, proudhon is an act of insanity or just comedy. The biggest boat misser I've seen on this forum, assuming he really sold under $10 dollars and has been hoping for it to crash under it's sell price.
1738  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: [PLEASE, HELP!!] STUCKED TRANSCTIONS FOR ALMOST 15 DAYS! on: December 18, 2017, 01:39:08 PM
Hi !
Could some MINER help me?

I have 3 transactions stucked since day 7 dec!
I used 25 sat / per byte

Btc:
https://blockchain.info/tx/bf33497597e2771f4b3afb452cf51d28a3dc264d216e5f990d99a5359fa308e7

https://blockchain.info/tx/a72e7ec802a57b0c8cb490dceda4a88b29a9cc2f242072eea768730c070c8b1c

https://blockchain.info/tx/c56e6a38e1763c98407b2e82e3f66d913fa252a6ecd3fd3948a6689eefe4ef5a


Never happened before wait so long. Also, I have already tried ViaBTC and nothing.
 
THX since now!

gin1810

What software did you use to send the transaction? If you used Bitcoin Core, you should have used whatever recommended fee Bitcoin Core was recomending... otherwise you risk that the transaction will get stuck.

You can use replace by fee with Bitcoin Core, or you can use --zapwallettxes on the shortcut to get the money back (will need to re-scan the entire blockchain so it will take a while)

If you have to manually enter the fee, use this site:

https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/

and use whatever number on the first green line. In this case 381-390 sats per byte will currently give you a smooth transaction.
1739  Economy / Speculation / Re: Time to buy the dip on: December 18, 2017, 01:24:42 AM
Hahaha and where is the dip? Stop trying to create fud in here, the cme futures are going to be released in a few hours from now, and i have been watching the prices and there haven't been any big red candle in there.

Stop making fud, there have been a lot of threads like this on the past, and they all are the same.

People would not sell all their bitcoins because a random guy is telling us to "sell our btc's" if we do not want to lose money from this.

And yes, of course that if there is a dip i will buy more.


Look again, the big red candle is here. CME has triggered newbies into selling and whales playing along to make it look legit. They will create a nice dip and the smart money will pick all the cheap Bitcoin once the CME idiocy is realized by the market since future contracts are irrelevant in an asset like Bitcoin.

Once the global market goes through this phase we will hit an all time high, quite possibly before 2018 arrives, so read the thread title and stick to it.
1740  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Does reusing addresses lower fees? on: December 18, 2017, 12:39:59 AM
If instead of using 3 different addreses, I used the same address A for the 3 different payments (so A=0.032), would this "A to some other address" transaction cost less fees?
No.

Quote
or the fees would be exactly the same because it would still count as 3 transactions within A?
The fee is based on the transaction size (in bytes). Two inputs from two different addresses are the same size as two inputs from the same size.
Check my transaction: 3 inputs from the same (uncompressed) address produces a 583 bytes transaction.

So if I understood correctly, it's like I said, the same thing.

A = 0.01         tx1
B = 0.02         ----->     D = 0.032
C =  0.002




E = 0.01        tx2
E = 0.02        ----->      F = 0.032
E = 0.002


In transaction 1, you received a total 0.032 in 3 different addresses, then you sent it to address D.

In transaction 2, you received the same amount of BTC in 3 different transactions of the same amounts to the same address (E), then you sent it to address F.

Transaction size of tx1 and tx2 are the same, is this correct?

Also, would this be correct irrespective of the amounts being sent because what matters is the number of inputs on a transaction?

I still don't quite get how size and therefore fees are calculated, and I don't get what you tried to show me there with your blockchain link to be honest.
Pages: « 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 [87] 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 ... 189 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!