Username: HCP123

yay! free stuff...

Your transaction: c364f127f6b29be344eb704c19e3e4a9c92e480b279be1c059431d4e3932b804

is at the end of a long line of unconfirmed transactions that are all using retardedly low fees...

24445b888a59bb03b06f82c23d75170ed5ced9751a1aa43a8410b316a1a240e1 - 4.425 sat/B
6325372498800e2262fa204b4a4ef6297143c1985304166c78efb443deec08e4 - 4.444 sat/B
9809c6a9c0bc0b4c795393647b939b660d238df5022050774983127d4e2aec4c - 0.044 sat/B
01b3826463591b55d8bd853f086e7d0ab0cbefb49d5f33f105ff7126a42a0c88 - 0.044 sat/B
d183128dd14ab73833c9278ed25d63bc496a11bd738342c2e88acb30cd2ea8c1 - 0.044 sat/B

0.044 sats per byte??

The likelihood of any of those transactions ever being confirmed is practically zero... the fees aren't even big enough to use the ViaBTC TX accelerator.

Your options are:

1. Try a "Child Pays For Parent" if you control the address 1G5DbixGxDAuTHFzyacirpKPxpWAUVgKcE and can send the 0.02437 BTC output from it with a MASSIVE fee that would cover all 6 of those transactions...
2. Try and do a "Replace By Fee" if the transactions were sent with RBF enabled
3. Contact one of the mining pool operators that frequents btctalk and see if you can pay them to include your transaction in a block.
4. Wait until all those transactions drop out of the mempool (2 or 3 days) and try and send them again, but with proper fees.

Suggested Reading: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1802212.0

It is not guaranteed, but in general, miners will tend to prioritise transactions that have a higher satoshi/byte fee... satoshis/byte is the critical thing... NOT the total size of the fee. This is because they only have 1MB of blockspace to work with... so they like to maximise the amount of fees they get for the 1MB.

So if you have two transactions, both have the same data size... but one has a fee that is 200 satoshis/byte and one that is only 50 satoshis/byte, it makes more economic sense for them to include the 200 sat/byte one first.

Likewise, if they have a transaction that is 2000 bytes... and has a fee that is 50 sats/byte (0.001 btc)... and a transaction that is only 200 bytes, but has a 200 sat/byte fee (0.0004 btc)... it still makes more sense for them to prioritise the one that only has a 0.0004 fee, because it has a higher sat/byte fee... and they still have 1800 bytes available and could potentially fit in another 9 transactions.

Remember, there is no rule that says a miner must include any given transaction... you're just trying to increase the odds of your transaction being included by making it as attractive as possible to the miners...

Nothing is guaranteed with blockchain transactions... I've seen examples of people paying above the recommended fee and having to wait several hours for things to confirm. I've also sent transactions with 50 sat/byte fee (total was like 10k fee) and it confirmed in like 20 minutes. However, I checked the mempool and sent when there were not a lot of transactions... so I got "lucky"

So there is your answer... for all intents and purposes, both of the OSes won't even know the other one exists (ignoring mounting of foreign partitions etc)...

So, just like the OSes, while both of your Electrum installations will be on the same physical disk, they'll be residing on separate partitions... and won't know the other installation exists.

UNLESS, you specifically set it up so that your wallet.dat lives on a common partition... in which case you could access the same wallet from either OS. 

One: Done

Two: Done


My personal opinion, for what it is worth:

This, is a pretty aggressive/risky strategy... but has the matching returns. I made 6161 units profit in 1000 rolls with a 10 unit basebet. I don't think it is designed for small bankrolls, as you will need a fairly large balance to ride out the bad streaks. You can see from the chart that I dropped like 6500 units in the middle of that run... and that was betting with a base of 10 units (and increasing by 10 units as required by the strategy).

It probably isn't for the feint-hearted who don't like red streaks... or betting large when required.


Other points to note are:

• I increase when backing out a level after losing a full cycle... it never said to do that in the original strategy as far as I could tell...
• The script resets if it breaks even or makes a profit when a hit occurs. I'm considering adding in some code so that once the bets get above a certain level (maybe 10x baseUnit), being within 2 baseUnits of the break even point would generate a reset.
• Dice has a lower edge than Roulette, so you can either have slightly higher chance to win for same payout as Roulette, or same chance to win with higher payout. This script chooses the first option, higher chance to win.
• I can't seem to find what you're supposed to do if you are on the highest level, and you win, but it doesn't break even or profit? Currently the script will just increase the bet and keep betting at the "Split" level (~5.5% chance of win)

Sure... why not? It is all fun... which is the whole point of gambling right?

And the only software that you need to use is Seuntjie's DiceBot, which is open source, free, is coded by a well respected member of the dice community and is used by a LOT of people... and of course, the script, which is just a plain text file that runs within the DiceBot.


PS. If anyone wants to contribute to my testing efforts: 1BtGWdpqNHmoHyoi9vxWcEkWiSkpqnBycr

It has been shown that the OP is most likely the owner of this so-called "star casino": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1879375.msg18677070#msg18677070

It is also fairly obvious that the starcasinobitcoin is a total rip-off of vegascasino.io website... and is most likely a total scam.

Does this site look at all familiar to the starcasinobitcoin.com website??   

The only difference being a few poorly edited graphics... oh and the fact that the links on vegascasino.io actually work and it isn't a total scam

vs.

(I took the liberty of adding some edits to the graphics for starcasinobitcoin myself )

Nice try Jose... hope you didn't pay too much for the domain name and webhosting...

Just to reiterate: starcasinobitcoin.com IS A SCAM

The simple answer is Yes, it is theoretically possible.

It is quite possible that a transaction just floats around in the mempool and never gets placed into a transaction because of a fee that is too low. However, this would require that someone keeps rebroadcasting the transaction to the network, as most nodes will drop a transaction if it is not confirmed within around 48-72 hours...

Often, this is done by the wallet of the user that sent the transaction... as some wallets will keep re-broadcasting transactions that have not been confirmed, which will reset the 48-72 hour wait for the transaction to be dropped again. This could theoretically repeat in an endless cycle.

In reality, what usually happens is that the nodes drop the transaction from their mempools, no-one rebroadcasts the transaction and eventually it is like the transaction never occurred and the user is free to spend the bitcoins... or, alternatively, the number of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool gets so small that the miners just include whatever transactions are in the mempool and even ones with super low fees get included in a block...

It would appear that you do not have setuptools installed correctly... no biggie... try:


or if you have Python3


Hopefully that works

Hey mate... did you actually test this script at all? Because there is an error in the code that prevents it from running.



and this code seems redundant:


and in the 1st code box in the OP with the 1.4 script... the base gets set to 0.0000000???  


But in the 2nd code box with 1.4 code (the post above this)... it is 10 sats...


Are there any other differences and which is the correct version?


Finally, can you explain the logic in the strategy/script a bit? I'm trying to follow what the actually strategy here is... it seems you set a tiny chance ( less than 0.89%) auto-adjusted based on loss streak length... once streak hits 62 losses, it chances to chance of 1.25. Then once the streak hits 400, it goes back to chance of 0.89... not sure what happens once it gets to 1000 loss streak tho, as there isn't an "else" clause on that first IF-ELSE block...


One last pointer... you might want to indent the code so it is easier to read...

Guessing you're getting stuck at the secondpart of #1, where you need to untar the Electrum archive. Usually you can extract stuff from tar.gz archives using something like:


Good luck!

From a technological standpoint... nothing is preventing other countries from competing...

Economically however, have you seen the costs involved in manufacturing in "First World" countries? There is a reason the majority of items you'll find in a lot of stores are all marked "Made in China" (or some other SE Asian country)...

And then there is the enormous costs involved with the production and supply of electricity... If other countries had similar manufacturing and electrical supply costs to China, you can be damn sure that there would be massive mining operations in those countries as well...

Don't calculate your fees on total fee amount... calculate them on a satoshis per byte basis, that will determine how attractive it is to the miners. For instance, a 200 byte transaction with a 0.001 btc fee is much more attractive than a 1000 byte transaction with a 0.001 btc fee... fee total is the same, but satoshi/byte is a LOT different (500 satoshis/byte vs. 100 satoshis/byte)

Unless MultiBit HD sets your transaction as Replace-By-Fee... I wouldn't try double-spending, that might create even more problems. You could investigate a. the ViaBTC TX accelerator or b. "Child Pays For Parent" (CPFP) if one of the outputs of the transaction goes to an address you own.

Otherwise, your only option is to wait... and use fees appropriate to the transaction size next time

I'm going to go ahead and guess that you have been receiving a lot of small "dust" transactions from faucets or other micro payment systems?

45,000 satoshis... even if it was just a simple "1 input/1 output" transaction, would be around 200 bytes... even at a "low" fee of around 100 sats/byte, you'd need to use a fee of 20,000 satoshis, which would mean you could only send 25,000 satoshis.

Electrum is telling me the lowest I should use is 136 sats/byte which would make the fee around 30,000 satoshis. If you get "insufficient funds" at any number, it means that the fees that Electrum is calculating, is larger than 45,000 satoshis... so you transaction must have several inputs.

Anyway, in Electrum go to "Tools" -> "Preferences" and on the "Fees" tab, check the box that says "Edit Fees Manually"... when you go to send, you will be able to specify whatever fee you want... so you can try sending with a 10000 satoshi fee or something. Just realise, that if your fee is too low, it will take a LONG time to get confirmed (possibly days) or could even be totally ignored forever by the miners. 


Have you actually used Electrum? It is one of the few wallets that DOES give you complete control over fees, to the point where you can switch off all the fee estimation stuff and just type in the actual fee amount manually.

Looks like it finally got confirmed... + 1,854 minutes later... that is nearly 31 hours...   and it was in a block mined by ViaBTC so I assume the TX Accelerator helped

Next time, don't use such a low fee, or enable the "Replace By Fee" (RBF) option in Electrum... or investigate "Child Pays For Parent" (CPFP)... that will give you a couple of extra options to help push stuck transactions along.

Doesn't look like there is anything wrong with it... the fee at 120 sats/byte is "average"... bitcoinfees.21.co is claiming 180 sats/byte... btc.com thinks 120 sats/byte is about right.

There are just quite a large number of unconfirmed transactions at the moment. It happens, so you'll just need to be patient. You can always try ViaBTC's TX accelerator and hope they mine a block soon

You seem to understand that is is about the inputs and outputs... but don't seem to understand how the fees are calculated? It has NOTHING to do with the "dollar" amount being sent in the transaction. It is purely related to "data size" of the transaction.

If you have a "standard" transaction with 1 input and 1 output... it will be around 192 bytes in size... I could be sending $1,000,000 worth of BTC or I could be sending $1 worth of bitcoin, it is still 192 bytes... and so if I pay the "normal" fee, it will cost 192 bytes * 130 sats/byte = ~25,000 satoshis...

Now, if you try to create a transaction like the OP did here, that has 20+ inputs because you've been collecting faucet payouts... all of a sudden, your simple transaction is now 3500 bytes or larger...

3500 bytes * 130 sats/byte = 455,000 satoshis... again, it doesn't matter if I'm sending 1000 BTC or 0.011 BTC, if the data size of my transaction is 3500 bytes because it has a lot of inputs and/or outputs in it, then the total fee required will be large.

If you don't like miner fees, support SegWit and help get the Lightning Network up and running... then you can start sending your dust size transactions around for minimal fees off-chain... and you're likely to never have to worry about the miners fees again

So, just to clarify, that is the first time you have attempted to send any bitcoins to your BTC address?

If that is correct, then chances are that, unfortunately, you did just send $315 worth of BTC to a scammer

I also found this article that would indicate that hidden wallet is indeed a scam.

If you want a wallet for you desktop/laptop... I would suggest getting Electrum (lightweight, doesn't download the whole blockchain)... or Bitcoin Core (Full bitcoin client, needs 120gigs+).... If you want a wallet for you mobile, then investigate Mycelium, Breadwallet and Electrum... they all have Android and iOS versions I think...

If you are absolutely set on using a web wallet (which is honestly, a REALLY bad idea)... then use a big name service like coinsbank or blockchain.info or Xapo or something... But I would really recommend you stay away from web wallets... like someone mentioned above, if you don't control the private keys to your bitcoin addresses, you DON'T actually own your bitcoins... someone else is looking after them for you.

Which bitcoin address did you attempt to send the coins to?

The TXID you've posted shows 73 confirmations, but it has 16 outputs. If none of those 16 addresses is yours, then either this isn't the correct TXID, or you've entered an incorrect address...

Given that you said you bought ~$319... I'm guessing the address I've highlighted in bold is the one you were trying to send to as that is the only one that is even close to that amount...


If so, those funds are in that address, as they are currently Unspent and the address appears to contain over 2 BTC.  However, I don't know how Hiddenwallet works... It is so hidden, I couldn't even find anything on Google except a link to an onion.cab website which won't let me register.

If this is the first time you've attempted to use this address/wallet and you don't have access to the private keys for the address you attempted to send the coins to, it is quite possible you have been scammed, as that address has 37 transactions dating back to 22nd March 2017...  

You might want to try using a more well known and trusted wallet/service in the future.

Does Breadwallet still continue to nag you all the time if you run on "rooted" android phones? I had this problem initially (I was a device maintainer for a Custom ROM project so needed to run rooted for a lot of my dev work) and never bothered to check with later versions if it had been removed as I found Mycelium and started using that.

I understand that the Breadwallet devs are super paranoid about the encryption and wallets being taken off lost/stolen phones and bruteforced... but you probably shouldn't be keeping that much money in a mobile wallet anyway!

Guess I'm just not the target audience for Breadwallet... c'est la vie...