Topic: [Aug 2022] Mempool empty! Use this opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs! - page 57. (Read 88281 times)
April 07, 2019, 03:18:52 AM
1 sat per byte is still possible! My transactions finally confirmed with 11 848 minutes lag. I don't even remember sending them it took so long...
April 04, 2019, 07:56:25 AM
1 sat per byte doesn't seem possible atm but hopefully mine will confirm. It's been 3/4 days.
I also send a transaction with 13 sats per byte and it took 8 hours to confirm...
I did a 1.5 sat per byte transaction yesterday and it got confirmed after around 10 hours I also send a transaction with 13 sats per byte and it took 8 hours to confirm...
(even non segwit)https://blockstream.info/tx/f97fcb8ab98986bc5d738958725a23e3e10a6f6c08bd8e4ab3309d47ef554b05
If you are not in hurry use 1-3 sat per byte
April 02, 2019, 05:03:36 PM
1 sat per byte doesn't seem possible atm but hopefully mine will confirm. It's been 3/4 days.
I also send a transaction with 13 sats per byte and it took 8 hours to confirm...
I also send a transaction with 13 sats per byte and it took 8 hours to confirm...
March 29, 2019, 02:13:38 PM
Are there are any noticeable difference between consolidate input alone and together with other people?
Yes. I can split the cost of 20 bytes between people (it's about 20 anyway, it's the part that contains information like whether the transaction is an rbf one or not). And I don't have to tell you that's half an output size approximately 
.It also. Means less data is stored for the transaction in the block (like a lot less data is stored) based on how the merkle root system is utilised.
IMO it's not really noticeable, unless when fee per byte is high. Your idea would be brilliant when Schnorr MuSig is released though
It is kinda noticeable and worth doing. For every transaction consolidated into the same one it reduces the size needed in the block to store the transaction.
So if you put 4 transactions into 1 you save 1536 bytes.... Fees are also no longer low.
March 16, 2019, 01:56:19 PM
If anyone wants to consolidate their inputs into the same transaction then feel free to shoot me a pm.
Are there are any noticeable difference between consolidate input alone and together with other people?
Yes. I can split the cost of 20 bytes between people (it's about 20 anyway, it's the part that contains information like whether the transaction is an rbf one or not). And I don't have to tell you that's half an output size approximately
.It also. Means less data is stored for the transaction in the block (like a lot less data is stored) based on how the merkle root system is utilised.
March 16, 2019, 01:47:13 PM
If anyone wants to consolidate their inputs into the same transaction then feel free to shoot me a pm.
Are there are any noticeable difference between consolidate input alone and together with other people?
I didn't know that possible! So it's like a manual Coinjoin:
FYI, there's a BIP which allow manual CoinJoin, it's called Partially Signed Bitcoin Transaction Format.
More info :
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0174.mediawiki
https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/bitcoin-improvement-proposal-bip-174-for-partially-signed-bitcoin-transactions-psbt/
March 16, 2019, 03:56:55 AM
As in there'd be a wallet with a watching only style with all the addresses and you sign individual parts. It's supported in electrum (done it many times with myself). Even segwit and non segwit inputs are happy - I think they are anyway, it's been a while..
I didn't know that possible! So it's like a manual Coinjoin:Quote from: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CoinJoin
The signatures, one per input, inside a transaction are completely independent of each other. This means that it's possible for Bitcoin users to agree on a set of inputs to spend, and a set of outputs to pay to, and then to individually and separately sign a transaction and later merge their signatures.
This would be fun to experiment with (in another topic). March 15, 2019, 03:48:04 PM
If anyone wants to consolidate their inputs into the same transaction then feel free to shoot me a pm.
How would that work?You send me an address you want adding to the file and I make a transaction from it?
As in there'd be a wallet with a watching only style with all the addresses and you sign individual parts. It's supported in electrum (done it many times with myself). Even segwit and non segwit inputs are happy - I think they are anyway, it's been a while..
March 15, 2019, 12:08:13 PM
If anyone wants to consolidate their inputs into the same transaction then feel free to shoot me a pm.
How would that work? March 15, 2019, 11:36:22 AM
1 sat per byte should take less than 6 hours (according to electrum).
Also, I have a 64 input transaction I'm going have to broadcast in about 15 days. If anyone wants to consolidate their inputs into the same transaction then feel free to shoot me a pm.
(also if you're a miner feel free to push it for me for free)
Also, I have a 64 input transaction I'm going have to broadcast in about 15 days. If anyone wants to consolidate their inputs into the same transaction then feel free to shoot me a pm.
(also if you're a miner feel free to push it for me for free
) March 02, 2019, 07:22:47 AM
Can you provide me with any good source which can give better assumption of fees that how much should I put to get fastest confirmation?
See:Fee estimators
1. https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx
2. https://coinb.in/#fees (lets you manually select inputs and outputs, note that the Recommended Fee (currently 1 Sat/Byte) aims to be included within the next few blocks. You can adjust this if you want priority)
3. https://estimatefee.com (recommends a fee estimate after you set a number of blocks to confirm within -- thanks lite)
1. https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx
2. https://coinb.in/#fees (lets you manually select inputs and outputs, note that the Recommended Fee (currently 1 Sat/Byte) aims to be included within the next few blocks. You can adjust this if you want priority)
3. https://estimatefee.com (recommends a fee estimate after you set a number of blocks to confirm within -- thanks lite)
Are SegWit addresses going to make any differences?
See:SegWit
User Wind_FURY found a comprehensive overview of Techniques to reduce transaction fees, including the use of SegWit addresses.
User Wind_FURY found a comprehensive overview of Techniques to reduce transaction fees, including the use of SegWit addresses.
February 27, 2019, 06:12:41 PM
Consolidate Bump!
<>
At some point last year, I saw recommended fees rise to more than 50 sat/byte, when blocks were full during large market fluctuations. Fees are low again! Consolidate your small inputs while you can, low fees won't last forever.
Recently, fees for a fast transaction are around 20 sat/byte. To consolidate, wait until it's lower again
1 sat/byte is still possible.
<
At some point last year, I saw recommended fees rise to more than 50 sat/byte, when blocks were full during large market fluctuations. Fees are low again! Consolidate your small inputs while you can, low fees won't last forever.
Recently, fees for a fast transaction are around 20 sat/byte. To consolidate, wait until it's lower again
1 sat/byte is still possible.
Not 20, but I paid more than 40 in a recent transaction as the wallet recommended me 40 sat/byte to get my transaction confirmed in the next block. Can you provide me with any good source which can give better assumption of fees that how much should I put to get fastest confirmation? I don't think wallets are giving accurate fee sizes as it should not be this expensive for me alone. Did anyone else pay such high fees like me during Feb 2019?
February 27, 2019, 05:57:27 PM
Consolidate Bump!
At some point last year, I saw recommended fees rise to more than 50 sat/byte, when blocks were full during large market fluctuations. Fees are low again! Consolidate your small inputs while you can, low fees won't last forever.
Recently, fees for a fast transaction are around 20 sat/byte. To consolidate, wait until it's lower again
1 sat/byte is still possible.
At some point last year, I saw recommended fees rise to more than 50 sat/byte, when blocks were full during large market fluctuations. Fees are low again! Consolidate your small inputs while you can, low fees won't last forever.
Recently, fees for a fast transaction are around 20 sat/byte. To consolidate, wait until it's lower again
1 sat/byte is still possible.
But if you wait for v18, you could use 0.1sat/B... Contrary to your suggestion, i think low fees will remain, or even get lower with the offloading of transactions into Lightning Network.
If you don't mind waiting a few hours, 1sat/B is working just fine. Sometimes you are lucky and get it under 1 hour.
January 09, 2019, 07:11:45 AM
Took about a day but consolidated my 5 wallets at a 1 sat/byte rate
Considering the price at peak market prices it's probably more than 10mBTC saved here. Thanks Loyce!
I approve this consolidation campaign. It's good for everyone.
You because it saves money.
The others because it means cheaper fees at crowded times.
The network because it means less stupid data stucked in mempool because you got too many inputs.
And of course BTC because it proves we're smart enough to self regulate and optimize the tech.
Considering the price at peak market prices it's probably more than 10mBTC saved here. Thanks Loyce!
I approve this consolidation campaign. It's good for everyone.
You because it saves money.
The others because it means cheaper fees at crowded times.
The network because it means less stupid data stucked in mempool because you got too many inputs.
And of course BTC because it proves we're smart enough to self regulate and optimize the tech.
December 27, 2018, 05:41:51 PM
No. Inputs have balance, an empty address has no inputs.
Then thanks for your advice and I'm going to consolidate the sit out of everything
!One sat per byte at the hefty mempool size a few weeks ago took 6 hours to confirm for me. Before then, it took about an hour I think (I do it before I sleep though so my timings might not be too accurate).
December 27, 2018, 08:26:19 AM
No. Inputs have balance, an empty address has no inputs.
Then thanks for your advice and I'm going to consolidate the sit out of everything
December 27, 2018, 08:18:28 AM
2 - If yes, is there a way to stop the sending to a different address at every transaction? For Electrum or even my hardware wallet, every time I want to receive BTC they suggest a new address and I don't know why. On the hardware wallet it's not even possible to get back the old addresses all I can do is get new ones...
You can use the same address many times to receive payments, but it doesn't matter for fees. But: using the same address reduces privacy, and makes it harder to know who paid you.So if I would like to consolidate a wallet, be it hardware or not, the best would be to generate a new adress of this wallet, then send the entire funds of all the adresses of this wallet to this new adress?
If you don't mind (for privacy) linking all addresses together on the blockchain, then yes, you can easily do this.Quote
Won't the wallet will take the inputs of all adresses next time I send funds? Even if the balance of other adresses is 0?
No. Inputs have balance, an empty address has no inputs. December 27, 2018, 08:17:27 AM
2. I don't think this matters per se. As long as all the inputs are all consolidated in the new adress, there is no issue. If they're not and instead all spread out over "new"/different adresses, then this is indeed a problem.
Note that you can always reuse an adress if you'd like to do so. I'm not sure how it works with hardware wallets, but it's not like they'll all of a sudden "throw away" the private key for said adress.
Note that you can always reuse an adress if you'd like to do so. I'm not sure how it works with hardware wallets, but it's not like they'll all of a sudden "throw away" the private key for said adress.
Ok thanks for the explanation.
The importance isn't number of adresses but number of tx that have been done to this adress then.
So if I would like to consolidate a wallet, be it hardware or not, the best would be to generate a new adress of this wallet, then send the entire funds of all the adresses of this wallet to this new adress?
Won't the wallet will take the inputs of all adresses next time I send funds? Even if the balance of other adresses is 0?
December 27, 2018, 08:10:57 AM
Hey,
I've got two questions cause I'm really not a technical guy.
1 - Are the inputs sizes based on the number of addresses from which the funds are taken?
2 - If yes, is there a way to stop the sending to a different address at every transaction? For Electrum or even my hardware wallet, every time I want to receive BTC they suggest a new address and I don't know why. On the hardware wallet it's not even possible to get back the old addresses all I can do is get new ones...
I've got two questions cause I'm really not a technical guy.
1 - Are the inputs sizes based on the number of addresses from which the funds are taken?
2 - If yes, is there a way to stop the sending to a different address at every transaction? For Electrum or even my hardware wallet, every time I want to receive BTC they suggest a new address and I don't know why. On the hardware wallet it's not even possible to get back the old addresses all I can do is get new ones...
1. Not really. You can have 10 inputs from the same adress, and it will increase the size of the transaction with the same amount as if all the tx were taken from 10 seperate adresses (if were assuming same type obv).. (?) https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1195/how-to-calculate-transaction-size-before-sending-legacy-non-segwit-p2pkh-p2sh
Quote
Assuming all the inputs you are spending are from regular "pay to address" transactions, each input will contribute 180 (plus or minus 1) bytes to the transaction. Each output adds 34 bytes to the transaction. And there's a fixed extra 10 bytes which are always present.
So the less adresses (rather inputs) used = more consolidated = lower fees most of the time.
2. I don't think this matters per se. As long as all the inputs are all consolidated in the new adress, there is no issue. If they're not and instead all spread out over "new"/different adresses, then this is indeed a problem.
Note that you can always reuse an adress if you'd like to do so. I'm not sure how it works with hardware wallets, but it's not like they'll all of a sudden "throw away" the private key for said adress.
2. Or are you talking about sending the change to a new adress each time? Afaik, you can change that, but that also won't matter much, since the inputs will stay the same.
December 27, 2018, 07:57:23 AM
Hey,
I've got two questions cause I'm really not a technical guy.
1 - Are the inputs sizes based on the number of addresses from which the funds are taken?
2 - If yes, is there a way to stop the sending to a different address at every transaction? For Electrum or even my hardware wallet, every time I want to receive BTC they suggest a new address and I don't know why. On the hardware wallet it's not even possible to get back the old addresses all I can do is get new ones...
I've got two questions cause I'm really not a technical guy.
1 - Are the inputs sizes based on the number of addresses from which the funds are taken?
2 - If yes, is there a way to stop the sending to a different address at every transaction? For Electrum or even my hardware wallet, every time I want to receive BTC they suggest a new address and I don't know why. On the hardware wallet it's not even possible to get back the old addresses all I can do is get new ones...
Jump to: