Can we have this rebased against 0.6?
Thanks.
Topic: . - page 6. (Read 40403 times)
Question -- how do I specify multiple source addresses for sending BTC?
(even though it's probably CTRL-click, for the sake of completeness...)
Settings - options - display
check that Display advanced anonymity features is ticked
click OK
There should be a new tab between address book and export
Go to Send coins and look at the bottom where it says send from:
Click anonymity
click the address you want to send from, and it will highlight in blue.
CTRL-click to add more addresses.
go to Send coins, at the bottom you will see the selected address(es). You can delete or add addresses directly here, each address separated with a ; (semi-colon)
if there is insufficient funds in the selected addresses it will error and you will need to reduce the amount or use another tab.
CTRL-clicking all addresses is equivalent to having none selected. ie the client will use up to all of the addresses that contain balances to calculate.
Don't forget that there is a tx fee for EACH address used, not one combined fee.
marked
Can I "empty" several of my addresses to single, already existing, MY OWN address?
I am getting "Error: Transaction creation failed".
Can it be "not enough money on all specified addresses to take a required fee from it" problem?
I am getting "Error: Transaction creation failed".
Can it be "not enough money on all specified addresses to take a required fee from it" problem?
yes, most likely the tx needs the 0.0005 fee, so transfer the total amount minus that fee and it should be fine
How about to show the "Fee needed" dialog in such a case instead of failing with an error?
Can I "empty" several of my addresses to single, already existing, MY OWN address?
I am getting "Error: Transaction creation failed".
Can it be "not enough money on all specified addresses to take a required fee from it" problem?
I am getting "Error: Transaction creation failed".
Can it be "not enough money on all specified addresses to take a required fee from it" problem?
I also have the same issue.
When you spend bitcoins, you redeem transactions that were previously sent to you. To redeem a transaction, you have to redeem the whole transaction. So, the client looks through the database and finds a set of available transactions that add up to more than your spend attempt. It then creates a new transaction that redeems all of the selected subset and transfers the balance to the destination address. Unless the spend amount happens somehow to be exactly the total of the redeemed transactions, there will be change due. This change is sent to a new address pulled from your wallet's spare key pool.
Okay... what am I doing wrong? I had Bitcoin 0.5.2 installed, and I copied the bitcoin-qt.exe from the patch over the original exe. I re-ran it, and verified it says version 0.5.1 now, but I don't see anything for "send from address".
Any ideas? Thanks!
used:
http://mtgoxlive.com/downloads/bitcoin-v0.5.1+coderrr-win32.zip
Any ideas? Thanks!
used:
http://mtgoxlive.com/downloads/bitcoin-v0.5.1+coderrr-win32.zip
+1 - it's not just for anonymity, it's also a look under the hood at addresses, which helps when explaining how bitcoin works.
This is an important aspect of it. 
Watching this.
This should really be made into a pull request
This should really be made into a pull request
from my last reply on this thread
Quote
Here is the pull request, +1 it if you guys want to see this patch get into core:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/415
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/415
Any help needed with testing? From reading the comments, it looks like that is all the pull request needs.
I have to say that having read this, I am very disappointed. The anonymity available in bitcoin comes done to this: with special tools, a specialist will be able to violate the anonymity of anyone using the standard client. Shouldn't this be fixed at the protocol level? Perhaps by exchange of bitcoin amounts with random clients, these transactions might disguise legitimate transactions breaking the chain of address dependency. This is not 'what it says on the box'!
Its true that eves-dropping is an issue, but its another issue, and in particular it requires action beforehand, while the blockchain is a permanent record, so can be analysed years afterwards to prove that I was sending money to more than one hot_lady! (or whatever!)
Eves-dropping is an issue, but its not a reason for lack of action on this issue, Gavin, how could you imply such a thing? It sounds like an excuse for inaction.
While I really applaud the work of coderr and the Bitcoin authors, anonymity is a part of Bitcoins promise, this post makes it clear to me that for now at least, the past blockchain can be forensically analysed to reveal far more information than a casual user would expect. We need to see how we can deliver on this promise.
The bottom line is, Bitcoin should have never been advertised as being anonymous, because it simply isn't true. At least, not with the default client. Its true that eves-dropping is an issue, but its another issue, and in particular it requires action beforehand, while the blockchain is a permanent record, so can be analysed years afterwards to prove that I was sending money to more than one hot_lady! (or whatever!)
Eves-dropping is an issue, but its not a reason for lack of action on this issue, Gavin, how could you imply such a thing? It sounds like an excuse for inaction.
While I really applaud the work of coderr and the Bitcoin authors, anonymity is a part of Bitcoins promise, this post makes it clear to me that for now at least, the past blockchain can be forensically analysed to reveal far more information than a casual user would expect. We need to see how we can deliver on this promise.
I have to say that having read this, I am very disappointed. The anonymity available in bitcoin comes done to this: with special tools, a specialist will be able to violate the anonymity of anyone using the standard client. Shouldn't this be fixed at the protocol level? Perhaps by exchange of bitcoin amounts with random clients, these transactions might disguise legitimate transactions breaking the chain of address dependency. This is not 'what it says on the box'!
Its true that eves-dropping is an issue, but its another issue, and in particular it requires action beforehand, while the blockchain is a permanent record, so can be analysed years afterwards to prove that I was sending money to more than one hot_lady! (or whatever!)
Eves-dropping is an issue, but its not a reason for lack of action on this issue, Gavin, how could you imply such a thing? It sounds like an excuse for inaction.
While I really applaud the work of coderr and the Bitcoin authors, anonymity is a part of Bitcoins promise, this post makes it clear to me that for now at least, the past blockchain can be forensically analysed to reveal far more information than a casual user would expect. We need to see how we can deliver on this promise.
Its true that eves-dropping is an issue, but its another issue, and in particular it requires action beforehand, while the blockchain is a permanent record, so can be analysed years afterwards to prove that I was sending money to more than one hot_lady! (or whatever!)
Eves-dropping is an issue, but its not a reason for lack of action on this issue, Gavin, how could you imply such a thing? It sounds like an excuse for inaction.
While I really applaud the work of coderr and the Bitcoin authors, anonymity is a part of Bitcoins promise, this post makes it clear to me that for now at least, the past blockchain can be forensically analysed to reveal far more information than a casual user would expect. We need to see how we can deliver on this promise.
Jump to: