drawingthesun
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1015
|
 |
June 05, 2014, 09:36:23 AM |
|
For these small payments we really need the wallet to calculate the best way to send a large payment and calculate the correct fee. If it's going to be a multi block payment then the client needs to handle that itself.
|
|
|
|
|
NeuroticFish
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3850
Merit: 6583
Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!
|
|
June 05, 2014, 09:42:46 AM |
|
For these small payments we really need the wallet to calculate the best way to send a large payment and calculate the correct fee. If it's going to be a multi block payment then the client needs to handle that itself.
I agree. But first things first: let's have a proper wallet first. Then it can be improved. |
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
June 05, 2014, 09:44:56 AM |
|
For these small payments we really need the wallet to calculate the best way to send a large payment and calculate the correct fee. If it's going to be a multi block payment then the client needs to handle that itself.
I agree. But first things first: let's have a proper wallet first. Then it can be improved. Yup. Also, better handling of unconfirmed transactions. If you try to send a transaction that is too large or has too small of a transaction fee, it maybe not make it into a block right away or ever. There is currently no UI for indicating to the user what is going on. |
|
|
|
|
Febo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2730
Merit: 1288
|
|
June 05, 2014, 09:48:08 AM |
|
It depends on how many chunks got in to get to that amount. As far as I've read, each time you got some MRO from the pool, a new address is generated for that. This is for our protection and it's OK. So I actually had to send from maybe 100 (internal) addresses to get to that 0.15 MRO (only one CPU mining). That's why the size was too big. If your 3000 MRO went to your wallet in one chunk or two, I'm almost sure you can send it away in one piece. I don't know more exactly, never had that many  So, if you let say mined 5 XMR, and then send 300 XMR on wallet from some exchange, you will be easily transfer back or anywhere else those 300 XMR, you will just have problems with mined 5 XMR? I thought of making 2 Wallets, but if it is this way is useless to do that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ellave
|
|
June 05, 2014, 10:17:52 AM |
|
Hi I have been away for a week & come back to find I solo mined 15 mro, but now I see there was a mandatory upgrade & change to XMR. Are these coins now worthless or can I still transfer them? I'm running wallet v0.8.8.1.1 according to the log??
|
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
June 05, 2014, 10:18:14 AM |
|
It depends on how many chunks got in to get to that amount. As far as I've read, each time you got some MRO from the pool, a new address is generated for that. This is for our protection and it's OK. So I actually had to send from maybe 100 (internal) addresses to get to that 0.15 MRO (only one CPU mining). That's why the size was too big. If your 3000 MRO went to your wallet in one chunk or two, I'm almost sure you can send it away in one piece. I don't know more exactly, never had that many So, if you let say mined 5 XMR, and then send 300 XMR on wallet from some exchange, you will be easily transfer back or anywhere else those 300 XMR, you will just have problems with mined 5 XMR? I thought of making 2 Wallets, but if it is this way is useless to do that. It is probably a good idea to mine to a separate wallet to keep those problematic tiny payments in one place. If you receive 300 from an exchange into a empty wallet, you won't then have any problem sending that 300 at one time. |
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
June 05, 2014, 10:18:45 AM |
|
Hi I have been away for a week & come back to find I solo mined 15 mro, but now I see there was a mandatory upgrade & change to XMR. Are these coins now worthless or can I still transfer them? I'm running wallet v0.8.8.1.1 according to the log??
Your coins are fine. Just upgrade your wallet software. Backup your wallet files before doing anything else of course. |
|
|
|
|
AlexGR
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
|
|
June 05, 2014, 10:31:03 AM |
|
I cannot transfer XMR to bittrex. What's wrong?  Protocol limitations. Is there any dev, from any BCN-coin trying to fix this? It's quite annoying - and not only that, but people used to Bitcoin consider it a ridiculous limitation. |
|
|
|
|
|
ellave
|
|
June 05, 2014, 10:33:10 AM |
|
Hi I have been away for a week & come back to find I solo mined 15 mro, but now I see there was a mandatory upgrade & change to XMR. Are these coins now worthless or can I still transfer them? I'm running wallet v0.8.8.1.1 according to the log??
Your coins are fine. Just upgrade your wallet software. Backup your wallet files before doing anything else of course. Thanks will give it a go. |
|
|
|
|
superresistant
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1131
|
|
June 05, 2014, 10:34:39 AM |
|
monero.crypto-pool.fr
Our total hashrate increased by 9 times in 24 hours.
The pool is very stable thanks to recent improvement in the code. There is still a big margin for more hashrate.
We never found so much blocks, it is very impressive.
Thanks for your support !
Check my signature for tutorial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TTM
|
|
June 05, 2014, 10:39:32 AM |
|
I'm seeing more and more people getting transaction size limit while sending Monero. So what is the problem here ? Transaction size depend mostly on number of inputs and outputs, not amount.
I guess this is because of the amount to be broken down into smaller transactions, i.e. 123.4567 => 100 + 20 + 3 + 0.4 + 0.05 + 0.006 + 0.0007. I think this way will increase number of inputs enormously. If this is corrent, Monero need some serious improvements otherwise it will be struggle on getting more adoption from users and exchanges. We can't tell user to send coins in even amount of something like 100 XMR instead of 100.123456789 XMR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
onemorebtc
|
|
June 05, 2014, 10:41:57 AM |
|
I'm seeing more and more people getting transaction size limit while sending Monero. So what is the problem here ? Transaction size depend mostly on number of inputs and outputs, not amount.
I guess this is because of the amount to be broken down into smaller transactions, i.e. 123.4567 => 100 + 20 + 3 + 0.4 + 0.05 + 0.006 + 0.0007. I think this way will increase number of inputs enormously. If this is corrent, Monero need some serious improvements otherwise it will be struggle on getting more adoption, we can't tell user to send coins in even amount of something like 100 XMR instead of 100.123456789 XMR.
the problem are many small inputs (eg pool payouts) btw bitcoin has the same problem (just better pools) |
transfer 3 onemorebtc.k1024.de 1
|
|
|
|
TTM
|
|
June 05, 2014, 10:43:37 AM |
|
I'm seeing more and more people getting transaction size limit while sending Monero. So what is the problem here ? Transaction size depend mostly on number of inputs and outputs, not amount.
I guess this is because of the amount to be broken down into smaller transactions, i.e. 123.4567 => 100 + 20 + 3 + 0.4 + 0.05 + 0.006 + 0.0007. I think this way will increase number of inputs enormously. If this is corrent, Monero need some serious improvements otherwise it will be struggle on getting more adoption, we can't tell user to send coins in even amount of something like 100 XMR instead of 100.123456789 XMR.
the problem are many small inputs (eg pool payouts) btw bitcoin has the same problem (just better pools) So will this problem will be less seen while XMR continue growing ? |
|
|
|
|
GreekBitcoin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1001
getmonero.org
|
|
June 05, 2014, 10:45:11 AM |
|
I'm seeing more and more people getting transaction size limit while sending Monero. So what is the problem here ? Transaction size depend mostly on number of inputs and outputs, not amount.
I guess this is because of the amount to be broken down into smaller transactions, i.e. 123.4567 => 100 + 20 + 3 + 0.4 + 0.05 + 0.006 + 0.0007. I think this way will increase number of inputs enormously. If this is corrent, Monero need some serious improvements otherwise it will be struggle on getting more adoption, we can't tell user to send coins in even amount of something like 100 XMR instead of 100.123456789 XMR.
the problem are many small inputs (eg pool payouts) btw bitcoin has the same problem (just better pools) So will this problem will be less seen while XMR continue growing ? yes obviously. It doesnt even need to grow. Pools just need to limit payouts... |
|
|
|
|
|
equipoise
|
|
June 05, 2014, 10:45:21 AM |
|
I'm seeing more and more people getting transaction size limit while sending Monero. So what is the problem here ? Transaction size depend mostly on number of inputs and outputs, not amount.
I guess this is because of the amount to be broken down into smaller transactions, i.e. 123.4567 => 100 + 20 + 3 + 0.4 + 0.05 + 0.006 + 0.0007. I think this way will increase number of inputs enormously. If this is corrent, Monero need some serious improvements otherwise it will be struggle on getting more adoption from users and exchanges. We can't tell user to send coins in even amount of something like 100 XMR instead of 100.123456789 XMR.
"amount to be broken down into smaller transactions, i.e. 123.4567 => 100 + 20 + 3 + 0.4 + 0.05 + 0.006 + 0.0007" is needed for the mixing and is just fine. The problem comes when you are mining in a large pool and getting dust transactions few times per hour. |
|
|
|
|
TTM
|
|
June 05, 2014, 10:57:57 AM |
|
I'm seeing more and more people getting transaction size limit while sending Monero. So what is the problem here ? Transaction size depend mostly on number of inputs and outputs, not amount.
I guess this is because of the amount to be broken down into smaller transactions, i.e. 123.4567 => 100 + 20 + 3 + 0.4 + 0.05 + 0.006 + 0.0007. I think this way will increase number of inputs enormously. If this is corrent, Monero need some serious improvements otherwise it will be struggle on getting more adoption from users and exchanges. We can't tell user to send coins in even amount of something like 100 XMR instead of 100.123456789 XMR.
"amount to be broken down into smaller transactions, i.e. 123.4567 => 100 + 20 + 3 + 0.4 + 0.05 + 0.006 + 0.0007" is needed for the mixing and is just fine. The problem comes when you are mining in a large pool and getting dust transactions few times per hour. We can't expect every pool to raise limits for the good of network, is an update needed at protocol level for this task ? I thought recent mandatory update with new fee was about to fix "dust transactions" problem ? |
|
|
|
|
luckygenough56
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1012
|
|
June 05, 2014, 11:05:57 AM |
|
when can we expect a shiny featured wallet and faster blockchain. Any ideas ? Will we be able to send coins from one exchange to another without issues soon ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xdragon
|
|
June 05, 2014, 11:11:14 AM |
|
I cannot transfer XMR to bittrex. What's wrong? Protocol limitations. Is there any dev, from any BCN-coin trying to fix this? It's quite annoying - and not only that, but people used to Bitcoin consider it a ridiculous limitation. I had the same problem. Solved it by restarting wallet, it takes just a few seconds  |
|
|
|
|
|
equipoise
|
|
June 05, 2014, 11:14:33 AM |
|
I'm seeing more and more people getting transaction size limit while sending Monero. So what is the problem here ? Transaction size depend mostly on number of inputs and outputs, not amount.
I guess this is because of the amount to be broken down into smaller transactions, i.e. 123.4567 => 100 + 20 + 3 + 0.4 + 0.05 + 0.006 + 0.0007. I think this way will increase number of inputs enormously. If this is corrent, Monero need some serious improvements otherwise it will be struggle on getting more adoption from users and exchanges. We can't tell user to send coins in even amount of something like 100 XMR instead of 100.123456789 XMR.
"amount to be broken down into smaller transactions, i.e. 123.4567 => 100 + 20 + 3 + 0.4 + 0.05 + 0.006 + 0.0007" is needed for the mixing and is just fine. The problem comes when you are mining in a large pool and getting dust transactions few times per hour. We can't expect every pool to raise limits for the good of network, is an update needed at protocol level for this task ? I thought recent mandatory update with new fee was about to fix "dust transactions" problem ? More dust inputs -> bigger transaction. Larger mixing count -> bigger transaction. The transaction size limit is not hard coded in the protocol - it's adjusting by itself, so it depends on the users: More larger transactions close to the limit -> larger transaction limit -> bigger blockchain. The transaction fee is currently hard coded, so whatever the transaction size -> same fee - this will be changed to larger transaction size -> larger fees. We could expect the pools to raise limits - the same way they do it for Bitcoin, because sending you dust, which is more expensive to spend then the dust itself is not good for the users and they'll eventually leave the pool if this is not changed. when can we expect a shiny featured wallet and faster blockchain. Any ideas ? Will we be able to send coins from one exchange to another without issues soon ?
It's already in the RPC API, so it depends on the exchanges now, not on the core devs. |
|
|
|
|
