Bitcoin Forum
February 18, 2019, 09:20:34 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 ... 551 »
861  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How to set bitcoin checkpointdata parameter in checkpoints.cpp on: December 26, 2017, 01:41:18 AM
Use a script which requests from Bitcoin Core each block and count the number of transactions in each block. Keep a running sum until you reach the block you want to checkpoint at.
862  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Improving confirmation time on: December 26, 2017, 01:36:08 AM
Figure 2  Coordinated ordered transaction mempool
The blockchain's sole purpose is to establish transaction ordering; if we can do that in the mempool (i.e. without the blockchain), then there's no need for the blockchain! This is effectively impossible to do though because Bitcoin is an asynchronous system; my node's mempool will be different from your node's mempool and, because of network latency, I will receive transactions in different orders than you do.
863  Bitcoin / Alternative clients / MOVED: You can use Breadwallet and Electrum at the same time. on: December 25, 2017, 02:16:51 AM
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

864  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Debugging Bitcoin/Litecoin on QT Creator? Is this possible? on: December 23, 2017, 09:46:42 PM
The developers of Bitcoin Core (which Litecoin Core routinely rebases onto and thus instructions for recent versions of Core also apply to Litecoin) use the Linux command line and GDB to debug. Very few developers use an IDE or GUI for any sort of work. It is all mostly done with text editors and GDB from the command line.
865  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Getting private keys from a BIP 39 seed. on: December 23, 2017, 07:29:13 PM
Holy moly. I think I need my hand held here. Thanks for everything so far.

So I've been fiddling around with the Ian Coleman thing. I can indeed get a private key that an XEM wallet recognises from the seed doing the bitaddress thing which is definitely progress, but it isn't recreating the original XEM address that the Trezor creates in the XEM wallet with this seed so evidently it's not deriving the same private key.

I'm entering the seed. I'm entering this derivation path in the BIP 32 tab - m/44'/43'/0'/0'/0' as the Trezor shows me and I'm entering the private key on that corresponding line from the Ian Coleman tool into Bitaddress to get the hexidemcial key.

But it's not giving me the correct private key to match the Trezor XEM address when I create another XEM private key wallet. What might I be doing wrong? This could all be painfully obvious, but I never claimed not to be.
The XEM address may correspond to the compressed public key, but your private key corresponds to the uncompressed public key. The compression of a public key is simply set by an additional byte at the end of the public key. To try the compressed public key, add 01 to the end of the hex string that you have for the private key.
866  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Can't import keys - unexpected token 'importprivkey' on: December 23, 2017, 07:26:05 PM
Is it possible bitcoin-cli is accessing/editing a different wallet than Bitcoin Core GUI?
No, bitcoin-cli does not access anything. It interacts with bitcoind or bitcoin-qt so it "accesses" whatever the running instance of one of this is using.

It is possible that bitcoind is accessing a different wallet from bitcoin-qt. The first time you ran bitcoin-qt, it should have asked you to choose a data directory. If you have changed it from the default, then your wallet file and all of the blockchain data will not be in the default datadir. However if you start bitcoind without the -datadir option, then it will use the default datadir which means that it will be using a different wallet and downloading the blockchain again. To check your datadir, open bitcoin-qt and go to Help > Debug Console > Information. It will say what the datadir is. If it is not C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\Bitcoin, then you are using a custom datadir and when you use bitcoind it will not be using that datadir.

If you are using a custom datadir, bitcoin-cli will need to have the -datadiir option set so that it also uses the same datadir to get the information it needs in order to access Bitcoin Core's RPC server.
867  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Can't import keys - unexpected token 'importprivkey' on: December 23, 2017, 07:09:10 PM
I have to run bitcoind in one command prompt (to get bitcoin-cli to work).
Yes, you must have Bitcoin Core (bitcoind or bitcoin-qt) running in order for bitcoin-cli to work. It is a tool that interacts with Bitcoin Core through the command line.

When I open/check Bitcoin Core, there are no additional addresses added.
Where are checking to see if there are addresses?

I know I could add them individually using Core's console, but I need a batch file since I have many addresses to add and wouldn't be able to do them one-by-one.
You could use the importmulti command instead. That allows you to import multiple things (private keys, addresses, etc.) in one command.
868  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / MOVED: Lightning At Last? Bitcoin Scaling Layer Almost Ready on: December 23, 2017, 05:28:23 PM
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

869  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Can't import keys - unexpected token 'importprivkey' on: December 23, 2017, 06:01:23 AM
bitcoind is not the program to interact with Bitcoin Core from the command line. You want to use bitcoin-cli instead.
870  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [JSON-RPC] Detecting RBF and CPFP with "listtransactions" on: December 22, 2017, 11:07:14 PM
A CPFP transaction is not a conflict and does not result in any additional transactions being listed in your wallet unless you are the one performing the CPFP. It does not affect you.

The safest thing for you to do would be to wait for one confirmation. After one confirmation, it does not matter whether a transaction was RBF'd or not; the conflicting transaction will be unconfirmed and you aren't counting those.
871  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: How BTC Push service works? 1 confirmation or more? on: December 22, 2017, 11:04:25 PM
One confirmation means that your transaction has been included in a block. All subsequent confirmations happen with more blocks are found on top of the block your transaction was included in. Once you have one confirmation, more confirmations will come as blocks are mined; there is nothing that you need to do.

You only need to pay a transaction fee (or fee for that service) once in order to get the first confirmation.
872  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / MOVED: Lost Bitcoin from my Address on: December 22, 2017, 08:36:16 PM
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

873  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network vs Bitcoin cash on: December 22, 2017, 04:33:04 AM
So, how will it be faster than the chain if the miners would stay in the main channel because the payment they will receive might be lower?
I'm looking forward to the Lightning Network and I don't want to use Bitcoin Cash just for a faster transactions.
THere is no "main channel". Miners are not involved in lightning except for confirming the on-chain opening and closing transactions. The transactions are faster through lightning because they can be done nearly instantaneously (well as fast as you can send data over a wire) with basically guaranteed security.
874  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Number of confirmations required to become confirmed on: December 22, 2017, 01:38:37 AM
A transaction is confirmed when it has at least one confirmation. If you don't see it in your wallet or it says "unconfirmed", that means that your wallet is either working improperly or not synced with the blockchain.
875  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network Centralizied? on: December 22, 2017, 01:33:52 AM
It won't be centralized in the sense of traditional banking centralization. Even if LN is dominated by most people connecting to just a few large hubs, those hubs don't have the level of control that a bank does. You as a user will still be in control of your money, and you can close a payment channel at any time you want. And you don't even have to have a channel with those hubs if you don't want to; LN lets you create payment channels with anyone else.
876  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / MOVED: Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash match from fork on August 1st. 2017 on: December 21, 2017, 05:54:49 PM
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

Duplicate of
877  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Concerns regarding SegWit + Lightning Network? on: December 21, 2017, 05:53:56 PM
During adoption, there will be a fee in the form of the on chain transaction to stake your coins and open a channel? So basically we are asking the userbase to endure a one time "adoption fee" in the name of lowering overall fees long term.  When lightning network is operational, and transactions are largely off chain, then the on chain demand is reduced creating the fee reduction.  That seems to be the biggest barrier to adoption, the requirement for "paying a fee to reduce fees". 
Not everyone is going to suddenly start using LN at the same time. Some people will suck it up and be the first people to open a channel and pay higher fees. As their transactions move off chain, the fee will decrease, and more people will then join. That will happen so on and so forth; the fee will decrease gradually as more people use LN and more people will begin using LN as it becomes more widely accepted and the barrier to entry (i.e. the funding transaction's transaction fee) decreases.
878  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Getting private keys from a BIP 39 seed. on: December 21, 2017, 05:11:39 PM
XEM is not on the list of coins on that source. When I enter that and the seed all I get is more Bitcoin addresses and private keys. Same goes for anything else I select. It's coin dependent.

It must require some type of input of initial code from whichever coin to give you results back.
It is only the encoding of the private key that is coin dependent. The private key itself is not coin dependent. You can decode the Bitcoin WIF private key into hexadecimal form, drop the extra encoding bytes, and just get the raw private key in hexadecimal. Then encode that with whatever coin encoding you want to use. Sites like will do all of this decoding for you.
879  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Concerns regarding SegWit + Lightning Network? on: December 21, 2017, 05:09:24 PM
The problem I see with the "just not use LN" argument, is that once Lightning network is widespread and we have channels all over the world filling flocks with all these microtransactions, the overall on-chain fee will be higher than ever, at some point it will be non-viable for most people to transact on-chain. For people using LN, it wouldn't matter, as their transactions will eventually go into a block mixed with the rest of LN transactions (btw, who sets the fee for an "LN-tx filled block"?) but for people that want to transact on-chain, it will be extremely expensive, unless im missing something here.

PS: Im not saying "make blocks bigger as soon as they get filled" and such nonsense are a solution, im just pointing out at how widespread LN usage could lead to unusable on-chain transactions.
What? No! That is not how LN works. There won't be "filling blocks with all these microtransactions" because the microtransactions are happening off chain. LN moves transactions off chain so there will be more block space for other transactions. Fees should be lower with LN, not higher.
880  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: ERROR: ConnectBlock: Consensus::CheckBlock: bad-txnmrklroot, hashMerkleRoot mism on: December 21, 2017, 05:02:22 PM
unfortunately it happened again, this time at 5%
Since this is continually happening, this may be a sign of hardware failure. You should run diagnostics on your RAM and hard drive to make sure that there are no errors.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 ... 551 » is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!