Electrum - Bitcoin client for the common users (friendly and instant)

[Tachikoma]

Hello, will the freeze option work even if other addresses' balance is 0 ? Thanks

I looked over the code and I am fairly certain Electrum will not spend frozen adresses even if other adresses are at zero. It looks to me that all the frozen addresses are removed as possible inputs.

[1715491740]

1715491740

[1715491740]

1715491740

[1715491740]

1715491740

[1715491740]

1715491740

[ThomasV]

Hello, will the freeze option work even if other addresses' balance is 0 ? Thanks

yes.
if you try to do a transaction that would require coins from frozen addresses, Electrum will complain that there are not enough funds.

[stepkrav]

thanks for your answers and for developping this.

[ThomasV]

I mean he had to know that its not needed anymore and that the new transaction replaces the old one.

bitcoin does that. it's called a double spend.

For that it does have to be the same sender and the same target plus the same amount? That wouldnt be possible then if using change addresses right?

no, no, no, no....
a double spend means that you are trying to spend the same money twice.
if you broadcast a new transaction, it will conflict with the one that's still in the memory pool of that server. the latter will be removed.

[SebastianJu]

I tried now on server ecdsa.org and again nothing. It waits till days.

Ah... now i get it i believe... its not that the nodes or electrum server knows the transaction its the satoshis that were sent already to another place. So because it cant be sent to another place twice the other transaction has to be a double spend. I was puzzled how the nodes could know that an transaction is the same. But the transaction to change-address isnt done too.

But i dont see that it works on the other server too. Should i ask the developers of bitcoin wallet because the nodes dont accept the transaction? I mean i know there is a floodprotection in the nodes but in this test-cases i think it shouldnt be triggered.

[SebastianJu]

Nothing changed. I now wait for days again to send 1 satoshi to another address. And nothing happens whil higher things like 1BTC or 0.2BTC as a donation goes through.
I got asicminer dividends too and the test-transaction got confirmations very fast too. My roommate got 0.0000002BTC this way and got his first conf very fast too. And she is using the exact same version of electrum. 1.6.2 with -w-param to use the same electrum.dat in linux and windows.
So i dont know where to search the problem. Is the problem with the nodes that dont accept the small transaction or is it some error in electrum or the electrum server software?
The full server of electrum.datemas.de isnt available anymore so i cant see the old transaction but the second transaction still waits at ecdsa.org with id

Code:

78c616dffe7b4fd30788e3c721e37a543a80ef55790e38134563b6f192522d3c

So is it really the node when other transactions from outside that are even smaller gets a conf very fast but 2 of my transactions on 2 servers doesnt get any?

[ThomasV]

Code:

78c616dffe7b4fd30788e3c721e37a543a80ef55790e38134563b6f192522d3c

so, I decided to decode that for you:

Code:

{
    "inputs": [
        {
            "address": "12HMTWSXTX9aQCBU6kRAZU5MwgNmGr8HjS", 
            "prevout_hash": "14be8b3f7257ef80633580a96b25a48c01dfdb7db476d87f30eee4df4fc73b6c", 
            "prevout_n": 35, 
            "sequence": 4294967295, 
        }
    ], 
    "lockTime": 0, 
    "outputs": [
        {
            "address": "1PouBPPf25kkS8VHgmYa4Ta62UXU7iomVc", 
            "index": 0, 
            "raw_output_script": "76a914fa31755858f134cefcd2722e9f3eb1b1fbbce90a88ac", 
            "value": 1
        }, 
        {
            "address": "1HvXPqcKM891wpHpBg3M8FWyJKPnCcuNhb", 
            "index": 1, 
            "raw_output_script": "76a914b9a16e111aaec38c69de1c273d4c56ef519edb7788ac", 
            "value": 2978007199
        }
    ], 
    "version": 1
}

So, your total output is  2978007199 + 1 = 2978007200 satoshis. According to blockchain.info, your input had 2978007200 satoshis too.
This means that you decided to pay zero fee to miners for your transaction.
Good luck with that...

I wrote above that the most likely cause for the rejection of your first transaction was insufficient fee.
Even though I did not write it explicitly, I was implying that your new transaction should include a fee.

[SebastianJu]

Ok, it looks like the transaction from asicminer had a fee too, but over a bunch of small transactions: https://blockchain.info/tx/f372136456a3683587f184b62249e614367d8cd5ea39f9b81e5d43cd14b6a8da

So thats probably an explaination. But its still a bit strange. I mean 0.2BTC without fee are worked up pretty fast but if you want to send a test-transaction you have to send more fee than the transaction is worth itself. Thats nuts somehow and would mean small transactions cant be done. Or would a fee of one satoshi make a difference?

[Tachikoma]

Ok, it looks like the transaction from asicminer had a fee too, but over a bunch of small transactions: https://blockchain.info/tx/f372136456a3683587f184b62249e614367d8cd5ea39f9b81e5d43cd14b6a8da

So thats probably an explaination. But its still a bit strange. I mean 0.2BTC without fee are worked up pretty fast but if you want to send a test-transaction you have to send more fee than the transaction is worth itself. Thats nuts somehow and would mean small transactions cant be done. Or would a fee of one satoshi make a difference?

This is just not true as I understand it. 0.2BTC without fee has no bigger chance to get processed then 0.0002BTC as far as I know. It's just a matter of luck.

[gyverlb]

Ok, it looks like the transaction from asicminer had a fee too, but over a bunch of small transactions: https://blockchain.info/tx/f372136456a3683587f184b62249e614367d8cd5ea39f9b81e5d43cd14b6a8da

So thats probably an explaination. But its still a bit strange. I mean 0.2BTC without fee are worked up pretty fast but if you want to send a test-transaction you have to send more fee than the transaction is worth itself. Thats nuts somehow and would mean small transactions cant be done. Or would a fee of one satoshi make a difference?

How can the network make the difference between test transactions and transaction SPAM trying to DoS the blockchain?

Test transactions only exist in your mind: all transactions are real.

[SebastianJu]

Ok, it looks like the transaction from asicminer had a fee too, but over a bunch of small transactions: https://blockchain.info/tx/f372136456a3683587f184b62249e614367d8cd5ea39f9b81e5d43cd14b6a8da

So thats probably an explaination. But its still a bit strange. I mean 0.2BTC without fee are worked up pretty fast but if you want to send a test-transaction you have to send more fee than the transaction is worth itself. Thats nuts somehow and would mean small transactions cant be done. Or would a fee of one satoshi make a difference?

This is just not true as I understand it. 0.2BTC without fee has no bigger chance to get processed then 0.0002BTC as far as I know. It's just a matter of luck.

I believe i first sent 0.000002BTC, then 0.2BTC as donation to an escrow and then 0.00000001BTC as a test again. Only the second thing was fulfilled and that pretty fast. Of course its too less transactions to judge from that but till now i never used fees and didnt plan to because mining still is bringing enough money.
If its only a matter of luck then the second transaction was pretty lucky. I think it got into next block already. And judging from that many blocks gone by for the other transactions. While i think the first transaction is dead now because the server isnt in my list anymore. But the third transaction is there without conf for some days again. That are many blocks.
Maybe i should ask in development thread of the normal nodes if there is a wall somehow.

How can the network make the difference between test transactions and transaction SPAM trying to DoS the blockchain?

Test transactions only exist in your mind: all transactions are real.

I know there is a spam protection. But how could i trigger that if i only made 1 small transaction in days?

[Tachikoma]

Spam protection is not tied to you personally.

[SebastianJu]

Spam protection is not tied to you personally.

But it is to prevent that thousands of sathoshi-transactions flood the network isnt it? So does this mean at all the time before there were so many small transactions that they see it as an attack and doesnt include the small transactions? If that isnt solveable by using a satoshi as fee (i try this now) then small transactions wont be possible. Taking into account that small transactions wont become less with a bigger userbase and taking into that once the demand is high enough the points after the dot will be raised (maybe millisatoshi) to get more money that can flow that looks like a problem. Because that works against each other. Am i wrong?
At least one satoshi as fee should make it possible to dont go into spam protection. Because with such a fee it isnt possible to ddos effectively.

[ThomasV]

...

do you know that there is some documentation about Bitcoin fees?
maybe you could read it?
this is a Bitcoin related question, completely off topic for this thread.

[SebastianJu]

...

do you know that there is some documentation about Bitcoin fees?
maybe you could read it?
this is a Bitcoin related question, completely off topic for this thread.

I didnt have problems with small transactions even though i never used a fee. So i had to ask whats the problem. Sorry to disturb you. I wont mention it again.

[stepkrav]

any idea about that https://i.imgur.com/nqOoZ3a.png showing up in History tab ?

[Pontius]

any idea about that https://i.imgur.com/nqOoZ3a.png showing up in History tab ?

Switch to a "F"ull server, synchronize and then the entry should be "cleared" (afterwards you can switch back to your original server if you you like).

[ThomasV]

any idea about that https://i.imgur.com/nqOoZ3a.png showing up in History tab ?

are you using a 1.6 client, or 1.7 ?
in 1.6, a miscalculation may happen and result in that.
it happens if you have imported keys, made transactions where those imported keys were co-input with electrum native keys, and then restored your wallet from seed, or deleted the imported key (even on full servers)

I believe if is fixed in 1.7. otherwise let me know

[stepkrav]

are you using a 1.6 client, or 1.7 ?
in 1.6, a miscalculation may happen and result in that.
it happens if you have imported keys, made transactions where those imported keys were co-input with electrum native keys, and then restored your wallet from seed, or deleted the imported key (even on full servers)

I believe if is fixed in 1.7. otherwise let me know

I'm using 1.7.1. I'm pretty sure i haven't imported any private keys into this wallet nor have i restored it from seed. Hmmm.

If it helps i observed something else. I made 3 small transactions with no fee, that were taking long to be confirmed. I shutdown electrum and some hours later i opened it again. Now 2 of 3 were confirmed and showing up in history  and the 3rd was nowhere. Instead this message about "pruned transactions" had shown up in history. After rebooting again, i can see the 3rd transaction, not confirmed yet, and the "pruned"  message.

 

[ThomasV]

are you using a 1.6 client, or 1.7 ?
in 1.6, a miscalculation may happen and result in that.
it happens if you have imported keys, made transactions where those imported keys were co-input with electrum native keys, and then restored your wallet from seed, or deleted the imported key (even on full servers)

I believe if is fixed in 1.7. otherwise let me know

I'm using 1.7.1. I'm pretty sure i haven't imported any private keys into this wallet nor have i restored it from seed. Hmmm.

If it helps i observed something else. I made 3 small transactions with no fee, that were taking long to be confirmed. I shutdown electrum and some hours later i opened it again. Now 2 of 3 were confirmed and showing up in history  and the 3rd was nowhere. Instead this message about "pruned transactions" had shown up in history. After rebooting again, i can see the 3rd transaction, not confirmed yet, and the "pruned"  message.

 

oh, then I think it's normal. one of your pending transactions was pruned because all its outputs were spent.
visit a full server if you want to view your complete history.