Topic: Blockchain disable pyment to multiple addresses per transaction. (Read 1076 times)

The closest approach would be some kind of DDOS attack and that is not possible in the block chain because the TX's are spaced out as they are processed.

Or Electrum if you don't want to experience pain. You can trust it for important funds, but not a lot like cold wallet. Even I am more smart and i know more about security than most signature campaign managers.

it will take some time mate i did remember what happen to yahoo and how did issue affect his role as a manager of many campaign here including mine, its takes some delayed and he did need to download bitcoin Core wallet in order to resolved this issue and send the payments,

If blockchain did already removed its multi-send function then we cant do anything about it and the mainly affected on this thing is those who make multiple transaction one at a time which are commonly seen on signature campaigns and other related transactions. Best alternatives? Then download bitcoin core since theres a multisend feature on that one,downloading would really be a pain for sure.

Despite the fairly average English (bad Google Translate?), it is relatively clear that the OP is wanting suggestions for alternatives to blockchain.info now that they no longer support "Pay To Many" transactions.

"Pay To Many" can be a way to save on transaction fees... especially if you have 1 very large input and need to make a number of smaller outputs. You can effectively decrease your total fees by a fairly sizeable amount.

I'm not sure where you guys got the ideas of wanting to kill addresses or block addresses??!?

If you have an address and want to kill it, simply lose the private key and that wallet is gone, although it can receive coins.  Blocking another persons address is simply not possible.

The first case would make little sense as the outputs come from the TX, so if you didn't want an output address you would not include it in the TX.  The second has such scary ramifications that it is crazy

Is it that you want to code a TX and prevent the output from going to a certain address?  Or do you want to code a TX and have that alter the future blockchain blocks causing an address to be unable to be an output?

I just wanted to add one last thing: it seems like you (the OP), are a bit confused on the topic of fees.
Electrum doesn't charge any fees* to send BTC on their network, neither does core, neither does blockchain.info (as far as i know).
There is one network, different wallet clients that help you keeping track of your outputs, create transactions, sign messages,... All these wallets should use the same network, the same ledger, the same protocol,... (unless you're talking about altcoins)

YOU use unspent outputs as input for a new transaction, the difference between the sum of the inputs and sum of the outputs is the fee. The fee is payed to the miner that mines the block that includes your transaction. The higher the fee per byte of transaction data, the better the odds will be that a miner will pick your transaction to be added to the block he's currently working on.

Altough some wallets have a built-in security, there are a lot of wallets that will allow you to create 0 fee transactions, but your chances of getting those ones in a block are very small.
There also used to be some wallets that did charge a fee (like the old multibit HD), but i think most of them have stopped this practice.

* PS: electrum works together with a 2FA provider that does charge a fee, so if you enable 2FA in electrum, you might have to pay a per-transaction fee (afaik)

Bitcoin Core is definitely better in terms of security and privacy but the tradeoff is worth it for the convenience.

All your private keys are stored within the Electrum wallet and as long as you download it from their official website and the signature matches, it is very secure. They do not have any control over your private key.

For the transaction fees, you can set your own fee for the entire transaction, per kb or use dynamic fee which adjusts the fee structure automatically. I would recommend the latter though it can costs more but at least it will get confirmed in a fairly reasonable time.

The option of electrum will be better since it shall take few minutes to get everything setup and people shall receive their payment.

How secure is electrum wallet? What are the transaction fees for send btc on their network ?

No,
It's an SPV wallet, it only downloads the block headers (it should only take a couple of minutes).

I would also recommend either electrum, or bitcoin core... Both have a paytomany (sendmany in core) function. The upside from core would be that your wallet actually downloads and verifies every block, so you're also helping the network... It can also signal something (in case you have a "political" opinion on the current blocksize debate).
The upside of electrum would be that it's SPV and HD (altough more recent versions of core are also HD)

Blockchain.info are becoming more greedy as claimed by some rumors, they expects all transactions to be done bit by bit in order to receive some percentage from the high transactions fees that blockchains are charging.

Does electrum wallet also download all the blockchain before we can use it because it shall takes days before bitcoin synchro or it is an instant usage.

Blockchain.info is an EXTREMELY bad choice for a wallet where you are storing important funds. It has proven again and again to be unreliable and bugged.

You can easily import your address into Electrum or just sweep it into one of the address generated from the seed. Electrum is a desktop wallet and is a way better alternative as compared to Blockchain.info.

I don't know why blockchain disables this functionality? Whereas the function of sending bitcoin to multiple addresses is a function that is very widely used by the user right ? It looks like using a desktop wallet like electrum, bitcoin core, can be used you can download it, sync it, and you can use it to send bitcoin to many addresses

Blockchain disable pyment to multiple addresses per transaction and this have become a problem to most signature campaign operatives because of the sending cost.

Can someone please proffer a solution to this especially in the area of the best alternatives.

Your contributions shall be greatly appreciated.