|
Most wallets have an import feature. Many phone wallets can scan a private key's QR code and many computer wallets will let you type in the private key.
|
|
|
|
Hi there, I'm trying to figure out how exactly the fees related to the transaction dust work. I'm trying to test some code related to small payments (or maybe even micro-payments) in the testnet and I'm getting a bit stuck. For what I could find in the source code: // "Dust" is defined in terms of CTransaction::minRelayTxFee,
// which has units satoshis-per-kilobyte.
// If you'd pay more than 1/3 in fees
// to spend something, then we consider it dust.
// A typical txout is 34 bytes big, and will
// need a CTxIn of at least 148 bytes to spend:
// so dust is a txout less than 546 satoshis
// with default minRelayTxFee. I've also read from stackexchange that : Sending less than 0.01 BTC to any recipient — The network considers these small outputs to be “dust,” and discourages them by requiring a fee. But I couldn't find how those fees are applied. It mean that for each input smaller than 0.001 BTC a minimum fee should be included? So for example a transaction with 3 inputs (two of them with less than 0.001 BTC) and two outputs will need 3*0.00001 BTC as fee? (One for each input below 0.001 and another one as BTC/kb payment?) You are making it more complicated than it needs to be. The fee is applied to the size of the entire transaction. The comments in the source about the size of inputs and outputs are referring to determining the minimum size of a transaction. The "dust" in the stackexchange quote is informally referring to any small amount as "dust". The rule that it is referring to requires any transaction that includes an output of less than 0.01 BTC to pay the minimum fee. This page might be helpful: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees |
|
|
|
Do you think once mining can become decentralized again, for instance, if every laptop computer comes with an asic mining chip, couldn't the electricity used to power your laptop replace any fees that one would have to pay?
No, that is not the point of fees. The fees are an incentive to miners to include a transaction in their blocks. If there are no fees, then there is no incentive for them to include your transaction. It is basically a bribe, not a mandatory thing you need to have, just something recommended. So what if instead of a transaction based reward for mining, the inclusion of a petty amount of hash power gets you free transactions? The ability to participate in the network, broadcasting zero cost transactions becomes the incentive. Maybe that's kind of what the lightening network is trying to do. I just don't see how bitcoin will survive mining centralization. At least the bitcoin that I have grown to appreciate. If you take your suggestion, but you also have the option of paying someone else to hash for you, then you have the current system. |
|
|
|
|
The amount of the fee that is required to get into the next block is determined by the miner, not the wallet.
Some wallets try to figure out what the minimum fee might be, some require you to decide what to pay, and some are set by the developer.
|
|
|
|
How would you change the fee, since bitcoin is a P2P network? Does someone go around asking people, "Hey! Stop paying 0.0001 as your tx fee! The meta is now 0.00001!"? Or do we have to switch to a totally different Bitcoin client?
This is all quite confusing to me, as you can see, I'm a mere Jr Member. Enlighten me.
It is complicated because there is no set fee. Each miner decides which transactions they will include in a block, and the fee paid by a transaction is a major part of the decision. The decision process used by most miners has typically been the one implemented in Bitcoin Core, but I don't think that is the case any more. Some wallets now look at transactions waiting to be included in the next block and use that information to determine how much of a fee to pay. Currently, Mycellium has been telling me to pay around 0.0002. Blockchain requires the user to enter a fee, and I currently pay between 0.0001 and 0.0005 depending on how important the transaction is. Other wallets might just use a fixed fee set by the developer. |
|
|
|
Hi,
Sorry I guess I did not quite express my self well enought, rain falls from the sky, I would not ask from where does the rain fall. But I could ask why it seemed a bit tinted, or unusual or something like that. So if someone can get me more info of the source (for exemple if you ar in the recipients, maybe you know who sent the money). I hope my question is clear, good evening to all.
Ignore RawDog. He is a self-professed troll. Sometimes humorous, usually not. |
|
|
|
How possibile see increase in future if it pass off exchange?
Market cap is related to how many bitcoins are already in existence * current price. It doesn't have to do with where the transactions are being made. It does, as off exchange transaction do not have a influence on the exchanges rates, which is what determines the price currently. All trading of bitcoins for other things affects the price whether it is done through an exchange or not because the supply and demand are still affected. Localbitcoin trades are off-exchange, but it would be wrong to assert that localbitcoin trades to not affect supply and demand and therefore do not affect the price. What does it mean to be off-exchange, anyway? Suppose Bitstamp stopped publishing trade information. Would that make them off-exchange? You could even consider off-exchange trades to be on an informal decentralized exchange because buyers and sellers still meet and negotiate prices. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not "illegal for tender" in Hawaii.
I think the author meant "not legal tender", but that doesn't mean illegal.
It would be nice if writers, such as Samburaj Das and Kathleen Gallagher knew what they were writing about.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand why you think this is a problem. The incentives are still there. BTCC has to reject other transactions with fees in order to include their transactions, so it will cost them money to do this.
|
|
|
|
jdebunt, you are the worst journalist. All your articles are crap. I wish you would stop posting links to them in this forum. In this article, you wait until the end of the article before admitting that there are actually no specific risks to a Bitcoin user. Even though it is not possible to steal a wallet data file without much more effort than just creating a rogue WiFi access point, ...
|
|
|
|
|
If you are not successful here, take a look into purse.io. It is a site where you order stuff on Amazon for people that will give you bitcoins in return. It can be expensive, though.
|
|
|
|
|
There are two main risks to selling with cash bank deposits. The first is that the cash deposits can sometimes be reversed. The second is a scam where the scammer has someone unknowingly deposit money into your account. In that case, you generally lose the money and the bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
Make sure you take a gun or at least be prepared because there has been a number of stories about people getting mugged for their bitcoin's or cash.
That's ridiculous. Common sense is enough. Don't get into a car with a stranger. localbitcoins, itself is not that bad..
but thinking logically.. people wanting to only trade for cash in hand, is a bit shady. so be careful with those types of transactions
Really? Dealing in cash is shady? How about this: localbitcoins, itself is not that bad..
but thinking logically.. people wanting to only trade for cash in hand Bitcoin, is a bit shady. so be careful with those types of transactions
|
|
|
|
There is no need to redistribute bitcoins. There is no need to force anyone to give up anything. There are lots of people willing to help you acquire bitcoins. Anyone can get as many bitcoins as they want. Just buy some.If you want to own more bitcoins than 99.9% of all the people in the world, then go to a faucet and get some dust. If you want to be in the top 10% of all bitcoin owners, go to an exchange and buy 10 bitcoins. It is that easy. Anyway, people that advocate a "fair" distribution of bitcoins are confused about the difference between money and wealth. If all the money in the world were redistributed, then each person would get about $200 in the form of money. If bitcoins were redistributed, then each person would get about 0.002 BTC, worth about $0.65. That's not going to change anything. |
|
|
|
I remeber reading a thread where someone wanted to buy BTC for cash at below market rate and people said he could do it by making an order with some company (coinbase or knc or something). Can anyone tell me how that is done?
Put an ad on Localbitcoins to buy bitcoins. Someone that wants to sell their bitcoins will come to you and pay a premium for the convenience. |
|
|
|
|
If the author really cared that the info was out-of-date, he could have just fixed it instead of writing an article about it. Anybody can edit the wiki.
|
|
|
|
You can distribute the coins evenly initially to everybody in the world. But as time pass by, these coins will be accumulated by small number of people. Are you going to distribute again?
That just isn't true. Would you say that all the dollar bills have been accumulated by a small number of people? You are confusing money and wealth. |
|
|
|
Stop and think:
- The rich love deflation money because rich become ever more rich. So bank and b.c. love it
- Limited supply: the prices can go lower, the rich can buy and invest more
- The adavantages of BTC are awesome instead than FIAT. For a bank: very low employe cost, very less costs for print money
Don't confuse money with wealth. Rich people don't hold a lot of money. They hold a lot of assets. Deflation hurts them. Poor people hold more of their wealth as money and are helped by deflation. |
|
|
|
It's notable, but he/she/they have no chance of winning because it is still new. Whether or not Bitcoin has actually changed anything has yet to be seen.
Well, Barack Obama got his Nobel Prize BEFORE he actually do anything, right after he became president. If Nobel Committee can award someone like Obama (without any reason whatsoever) then Satoshi is far more suitable to receive Nobel Prize imo. Different organization, different prize, different criteria. |
|
|
|
I was thinking about selling all my bitcoins, lock that fiat money in investing certificates in my bank where I get %12.5 premium per year and buy bitcoins every month (it will take some time to re-buy again all my bitcoins, but not that long, could be 1-2 years as I will include my fiat salary as well).
Loaning money to your bank is risky. You should instead be deciding which asset to buy -- gold, real estate, bitcoins, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
