|
It's obvious that a free transaction accelerator is going to end up being crap. If everyone could offer it then miners would basically just be willingly not accepting any transaction fees, which they'll never do. It ends up with people just paying the lowest fees that they can get away with and exploiting the service which ends up making it near useless for people with real problems.
People should just use a paid service or not use any service at all.
|
|
|
|
Blocktrail is a really good block explorer. Smooth, and no ads as far as I know. Blockcypher is also a good choice. Personally though, I have nothing against blockchain.info's block explorer. It's still pretty smooth and I don't mind one little ad when I'm looking through some data. |
|
|
|
Well, any sort of exchange growth outside of China is a good thing to maintain the competitiveness of the market and avoid giving too much power to any one nationality when it comes to market control. Exchanges aren't concentrated in China at all, only mining has been. It's shocking to see the Ethereum trading volume with KRW as well. Last time I checked, it was dramatically more than USD trading volume. I can't remember who it was, but the ideal statement was "Asians are lining our fat pockets with cash". |
|
|
|
The Lightning Network can take a huge amount of transactions largely offchain. The idea of having all transactions fully onchain is not a matter of principle, it's a matter of control from miners so that they can receive transaction fees more often. SegWit allows a slight increase in onchain capacity which is enough for the short term while this offchain scaling can also be implemented.
malicious spammers wont use segwit keys nor will they use lightning. they will continue to native spam the baseblock which will still distrupt segwit keys users and lightning open/close channel operations segwit/lightning does not solve the real problems. it just pushes innocent people away from native bitcoin with hopes and utopian dreams, but no promiss/guarantee's The resources that spammers need to pressure the network wouldn't necessarily change very much with larger blocks. They can just send lower transaction fees for their transactions that never confirm. Higher fees mean that spam can only take the network so far as the resources needed for it rise, and therefore solutions like LN are good for there to be low fees overall due to reuse of payment channels, and low fees for larger transactions because as a percentage those fees would still be miniature. |
|
|
|
|
Well the media can't win then, can they? Bastards though they are, there's no point in insulting them for not associating Bitcoin with the ransomware, when they would have been insulted a hundred times more for doing it. It's not like that exposure would have been good for Bitcoin's public image.
|
|
|
|
|
Price drops are caused by people taking money out of Bitcoin into fiat. Bitcoin is only inconvenient for small transactions - people who have held a significant amount of Bitcoin will find that it's actually not that hard to be spending >1 Bitcoin, and people who still find Bitcoin quite convenient will not be selling by your logic so it would not cause a very significant price drop.
Actually, you'll notice that when you go to that transaction page you mentioned, a surprising number of the transactions are upwards of 10 Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
To be honest there's not much point scouring all the sites to find a gambling site that accepts a relatively obscure altcoin.
Any site can "accept ETC" you just have to do some simple steps and accept some minor fees:
-Deposit one cryptocurrency in shapeshift, exchanging it for a cryptocurrency that the site accepts
-Set shapeshift's output address to the dice site's deposit address
-When you withdraw, do the same thing backwards.
You could use proper exchanges as well and it'd be cheaper but more annoying. You could also help to contribute demand by contacting the site talking about how you'd prefer using ETC.
|
|
|
|
|
The Lightning Network can take a huge amount of transactions largely offchain. The idea of having all transactions fully onchain is not a matter of principle, it's a matter of control from miners so that they can receive transaction fees more often. SegWit allows a slight increase in onchain capacity which is enough for the short term while this offchain scaling can also be implemented.
|
|
|
|
Ver's mempool spamming project is proceeding as usual.
He keeps it up for a while, spikes the transaction rates to get into the next block, then he pulls back again. This isn't because of "organic" growth and usage, its because a spoiled brat rich fuck can't wrap his around the fact that people didn't want his BU (Basically Unusable) proposal that he and chimp-boy Jihan Wu put together to scam everyone.
So, what will happen is the normal Bitcoin users will adjust their fees and use the network like they always have, and the newbies will freak out and complain until they learn the real root cause.
The best part is this only draws attention to Ver and his manipulating tactics, so it isn't the Bitcoin-smearing success that Ver hopes it will be.
What a 'effing tool.
Please provide evidence for your claim or GTFO. If we ARE speculating, I'd say Core has the most to gain by spamming the mempool. Herd people into the Segwit veal fattening pen. And who knows better how to use up all of the transactions capacity? Just saying. There's no real evidence that it's BU doing it, but there's definitely spam. I would argue that BU has the most to gain from spamming the mempool as it could show how possible it is for blocks to be consistently full even with the Lightning Network (since SegWit's increase in capacity isn't "flexible"). |
|
|
|
How to define that sat/byte fees ? When using blockchain, before sending i choose advanced fees and set the value fees (in this case 0,88 usd) and below it written that it will be roughly ~10 minutes to confirms .-. It's not blockchain,it's *blockchain.info.Recently,I've figured out they don't have accurate transaction fees calculators.The fees suggested by them without the advanced section is also meaningless since the users are still facing long waits with their recommended fees. Use a desktop wallet like electrum which gives you more control over your transactions. I think what you can do right now is only to wait. Seeing your transaction, you've input the recommended fees which is <110 sats/byte. But still it is not yet confirmed. Maybe the problem was on the blockchain itself, see if they are having such huge amount of stagnant transactions right now which may be the cause of your problem. Or try searching for other ways to fasten the confirmation of your transaction. Well it's been 3 days as of now, almost counting as 4 days and still not confirmed yet. I'd some googling and found out that likely after 72 hours btc payment will be returned to the sender if still unconfirmed, but not in my case  So what should i do now ? Can i pay someone to accelerate it or doing something with it ? It's likely to be 72 hours because that's when some nodes decide to reject it, but by no means does everyone do the same thing. Unfortunately in Blockchain you can't do Replace-By-Fee, so you don't have a lot to do but wait. Blockchain is stupid, they have no idea when a transaction is going to confirm. Just go to a good site for that, assume that Blockchain's default fee is 120 satoshi/byte and act accordingly. |
|
|
|
Again, thank you for taking the time to help me.
Out of the 69 addresses I have, 8 have "bitcoins in them", with one of the addresses carrying 2.34 bitcoins (just xfered my last highest amount to this address), the others just have amounts that are equal to cents which I do not care about. (they are too low to be xferred per block chain also)
Does that help at all? I can provide a screen shot of exact amounts if that is more beneficial
Since you generated a new address each time you received funds, i suppose you can have a maximum of 8 inputs and 2 outputs when you create a new transaction. Using this input in http://www.mocacinno.com/page/feeestimate , the maximum fee for a 95% chance of getting into the next 3 blocks would be 0.00276 BTC. If your transaction only uses the one input of 2.34 BTC and creates one output (no change address) to LBC, the fee would drop to 0.00042 BTC. If you're emptying out your blockchain.info wallet, and you're willing to wait a couple of hours, i'd recommand adding a fee around 0.002-0.0025 If you're sending an amount less than 2.34, but more than the 7 small inputs combined, i'd suggest a fee of 0.0004-0.0005 Please note that these are "educated guesses" based on your inputs and some reasonable assumptions. There is no way i can predict how many, and which, inputs blockchain.info will use to create your new transaction, unless you're completely emptying out your wallet (in that case, all unspent outputs will be used as inputs for the new transaction). Also, in the end, it's up to the miners to decide which tx's they'll add to the blocks they're currently working on. You can get super lucky and get added to the very next block with a suboptimal fee, you can also get super unlucky and have to wait days with a very reasonable fee... It's all odds and averages  THank you so much, my rate ended up being 816.568 sat/B, so I assume it is going to move pretty fast? I dont mind the fee if its quick, thanks again for the help. I really appreciate it Yeah. Recommended fees are shown on this page, and they should make your transaction confirm within a block, so you spent over three times what you needed to. Blockchain.info is an easy wallet to set a fee for because the fees they set are always similar to 120 satoshi/byte. When you're on Advanced Send you'll see the fees that they set and you could roughly triple it, at which point you'd get very fast confirmations anyway. 800 satoshi/byte is probably not necessary. |
|
|
|
When it actually hits 50% in a week or so shit will hit the fan.
BU and SegWit support are both by small amounts of pools. SegWit support can't just meld into BU support because it's only 3 big pools. You also thought it was going to happen very soon last month, and support then was only 2% less than now. Also, it has to consistently stay over 50% for a long time in reality. |
|
|
|
|
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
guideline
noun [ C usually plural ] UK /ˈɡaɪd.laɪn/ US /ˈɡaɪd.laɪn/
C1 information intended to advise people on how something should be done or what something should be
Guidelines are not damn rules, they're guidelines. Not only does theymos give the guideline that it's OK to give trust for a person, not a trade, it's also not actually abuse of the system to use it for anything at all. The system allows anything to happen. You can decide not to trust the feedback of someone if you want, but that doesn't stop them from making the damn feedback. Grr.
|
|
|
|
Created an account on coinbase and it seems that in addition to payment and phone number verification (and address), I need to upload a government-issued photo ID to use the service. Is this required of everyone?
With the amount of hacking going on these days, it does not seem safe to do so. If anyone gets into their database of photo IDs (even without accessing anything else), it would cause an inconceivable amount of identity theft.
Are there providers that do not require a photo ID?
To start using their services, no need to verify your identity. But to increase your weekly buy / sell limits and your credit / debit card limits you may need to complete a verification to enable additional account features. Same related companies also have that features. To understand that fully, head in their Support Question. True. However, Coinbase is about the worst exchange you could use if you don't want to reveal your identity. They have much tighter government controls than most others and seem to be somewhat regulated. It shouldn't actually be much of a problem to upload a photo ID. It's a reasonably "trustworthy" exchange (as much as an exchange can be trustworthy). |
|
|
|
|
Now the Bitstamp data has gone back up by about $50. Clearly just a correction so that the price can stabilise. There's no bubble and the price won't drop to <$1000, but we could see this pull back to just over $1600 in the future before Bitcoin goes for more gradual growth (or a bubble, depending on the size of these curves).
|
|
|
|
Yea true, my ideal scenario is BTC tanks and everyone enters into ETH, making me rich  Even if that happened, it wouldn't make you rich. Ethereum has plans to change the coin a lot, and it's unclear what they'll do with the supply so ETH is anything but a safe haven asset. Worst case scenario, they edit the supply way too much to keep the price stable and then you're left with an inflationary currency with too much control from the developers. |
|
|
|
|
Most whales are pretty private about what they hold. It's kind of obvious why - they won't want to potentially compromise their privacy and security. If anyone found out who satoshi is, for example, he would be extremely subject to robbery and a whole host of other problems, and satoshi is someone capable of putting a lot of work into their anonymity while a lot of whales won't be.
|
|
|
|
Everyone involved in the cryptocurrency space is watching the price of bitcoin very closely these past few weeks. One person watching the value of bitcoin rise is the former CEO of the now-defunct Mt Gox bitcoin exchange. Mark Karpeles says he’s “monitoring the situation” as the Mt Gox bankruptcy may seemingly become solvent thanks to rising price of bitcoin.Last week a post on the subreddit r/mtgoxinsolvency detailed that “Mt Gox reached around 78.5 percent of the claims value today.” The person also asked the former CEO what would happen if bitcoin’s price makes it to 100 percent of the claims value. Karpeles appeared on the Reddit thread detailing his interest concerning the current situation. The former Mt Gox executive says because Coinlab is suing the company it really makes the claims value around 59 percent. Coinlab, the venture-backed blockchain company, has sued Mt Gox for $75 million before the company went bankrupt. Read More Here >>> https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoins-price-rise-mt-gox-closer-solvency/ Apparently his definition of solvency isn't the same as mine. The fiat price now is immaterial to the value their customers were robbed of back then. If gox lost ~850000 BTC, they aren't solvent until they find ~850000 BTC. And we all know that's never going to happen unless someone looks under Karpeles' mattress. You're right, but refunding lost Bitcoin as the fiat cost at the time is realistically as far as it's going to get. I would basically just look at it as putting money into investments with high ROI in order to make the fiat money back, regardless of whether those investments are Bitcoin. It would be near good enough for a lot of people anyway. |
|
|
|
I concur, 100%. That's one reason why BTC hasn't taken off as a currency. But it's still good as something to speculate on, and as a (very volatile) store of value. When sig campaign payouts don't confirm, it's frustrating...but when you get a 120% raise in 3 months it's very cool!
Why would it be any different than tulip bulbs as a store of value if you can't use it for payments? Because it can be transferred from one person to another and to/from other cryptocurrencies, in a similar way to precious metals, as well as having a fixed and scarce supply. A store of value is only worth as much as people continue to hold in it - gold would still be worth the same if people didn't buy jewelry made of it. |
|
|
|
my repayment from yesterday is still not confirmed.
please send a little more fees next time.
thank you
Same here. And my question is this also that will it get confirmed or not. My transaction took a few days to confirm, but in the end the transaction confirmed... just have patience Off topic Sometimes it becomes very embarrassing when a transaction takes time to confirm. Days ago I bought refills for my cell phone and paid with bitcoin. They sent the refills and I used the refills, but the transaction did not confirm for a few days, I was very afraid of the transaction not confirming and the company that sells refills punish me. Luckily yesterday the transaction confirmed Kwel but how many days if you can tell would help as today's it's my 3rd day but still not confirmed. Usually, mempools will reject the transaction after three days or so and it won't confirm at all. The fees are now becoming too high for all these 0.01 investments to be practical anymore - really, 0.05-0.1 and up are the smallest investments which actually involve a roughly 20% payout for djord. Most transfers from blockchain.info (seemingly djord's wallet) use fees of between 100 and 120 satoshi/byte, which is on the brink of never being confirmed as you can see here. If djord just increased the fee by about 10-20%, it would almost certainly confirm within the required time, even if it's below the recommended fees. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
