that indeed takes a lot less space
i checked documentation on bitcoin and found no option to do it
Topic: CoinWallet.eu Stress Test Cancelled + Bitcoin Giveaway - page 3. (Read 98906 times)
amaclin, how can I sign the outputs with p2pk?
that indeed takes a lot less space
i checked documentation on bitcoin and found no option to do it
that indeed takes a lot less space
i checked documentation on bitcoin and found no option to do it
Everyone here is just a troll. The guy saying he got 4 btc hasn't shown a speck of proof, meanwhile I post I got a little BTC and he lambasts me and someone attacks me. I don't think any of you can program for shit and are just trying to discourage me.
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/address/1aa5cmqmvQq8YQTEqcTmW7dfBNuFwgdCD Confirmed Balance 0.77936884
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/address/1aamWKicYga3AN8UgywedHzEG12KbUUJJ Confirmed Balance 0.34194780
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/address/1aaf64VJGMuYuRBMmM9y2s2pPADFpuqDE Confirmed Balance 2.87336933
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/address/1aajpztNecNzGBDjJhGfkrsUJFgeyhBgY Confirmed Balance 0.65323966
Well it goes to the miners, but it's ruining the "giveaway" for people that actually want to do it.
Merging two outputs to one as you did - this destroys the network by increased traffic.Why should 6000 nodes resend your 0.00001 values?
Quote
I don't understand why someone would do that, there's no gain for them besides upsetting the people like me who worked hard to build a sweeper program.
Just for fun. You are not 5-year-old boy. Don't cry. Next time you will be winner. Trust me.Quote
His program just intercepts sweepers, it doesn't make its own transactions.
His program reduces spam in bitcoin network. Very fast and efficient.Quote
I would be more understanding if it went after unspent transactions in general, but he is literally just attacking my program from what he says
Welcome to bitcoin world.Don't even try to act like it reduces spam, throwing up another layer of transactions on top of mine does not reduce spam at all. If my transactions were "left alone" there would be less spam than if you and him double spended it.
You were trolling me yesterday, and then when I start getting proof that my program is working someone else comes along and says they are working to try and spite me, and apparently you guys love each other so it makes me wonder if you're the same person. You guys will be hearing nothing from me anymore until I am finished.
LOL. Are you serious?
Finally got it working and fully automated!!! Took long enough. Let's see how much BTC I can make
https://blockexplorer.com/address/1AyRmvqe99mRWU69w8Hbaeej8twMpdeiKm
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/address/1AyRmvqe99mRWU69w8Hbaeej8twMpdeiKm
Slowest part is loading in each private key. I guarantee ill sweep everything within the next day though.
https://blockexplorer.com/address/1AyRmvqe99mRWU69w8Hbaeej8twMpdeiKm
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/address/1AyRmvqe99mRWU69w8Hbaeej8twMpdeiKm
Slowest part is loading in each private key. I guarantee ill sweep everything within the next day though.
Yeah that didn't work when I tried it (other peers rejected the txs). Could be a cbitcoin bug?
SIGHASH_SINGLE should be OK for this purpose.
I haven't worked with this engine.SIGHASH_SINGLE should be OK for this purpose.
Can you publish the result tx? (already spent inputs aren't a problem)
We can try to construct the 1-input-1-output-to-OP_RETURN tx and should get the same byte array.
Quote
Well, you could always fork off AmaclinCoin
Haven't cached this joke. My bad English Sorry man. I started to code my program two years ago.
Mine was up and running last Saturday...
You were trolling me yesterday, and then when I start getting proof that my program
Sorry man. I started to code my program two years ago. You *should* do the last step. SIGHASH_NONE | SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY
Yeah that didn't work when I tried it (other peers rejected the txs). Could be a cbitcoin bug?
SIGHASH_SINGLE should be OK for this purpose.
Quote
BETTER FOR EVERYONE EXCEPT OF ME !!!!
Well, you could always fork off AmaclinCoin
It's nothing personal. I send it to the miners to avoid blockchain and UTXO bloat, which is better for everyone.
BETTER FOR EVERYONE EXCEPT OF ME !!!! 
It's nothing personal. I've also double-spent heaps of Amaclin's txs, and he has double spent mine. I send it to the miners to avoid blockchain and UTXO bloat, which is better for everyone.
Amaclin was trying to warn you that this would happen. All of the private keys were already spent (but unconfirmed) before you generated your first transaction (so technically you are also a double-spender!). The transactions you did generate were sub-par (crappy fee/size ratio), and were never likely to ever be confirmed. (you got lucky with the 0.0017BTC so far).
Amaclin was trying to warn you that this would happen. All of the private keys were already spent (but unconfirmed) before you generated your first transaction (so technically you are also a double-spender!). The transactions you did generate were sub-par (crappy fee/size ratio), and were never likely to ever be confirmed. (you got lucky with the 0.0017BTC so far).
Well it goes to the miners, but it's ruining the "giveaway" for people that actually want to do it.
Merging two outputs to one as you did - this destroys the network by increased traffic.Why should 6000 nodes resend your 0.00001 values?
Quote
I don't understand why someone would do that, there's no gain for them besides upsetting the people like me who worked hard to build a sweeper program.
Just for fun. You are not 5-year-old boy. Don't cry. Next time you will be winner. Trust me.Quote
His program just intercepts sweepers, it doesn't make its own transactions.
His program reduces spam in bitcoin network. Very fast and efficient.Quote
I would be more understanding if it went after unspent transactions in general, but he is literally just attacking my program from what he says
Welcome to bitcoin world. You're destroying the bitcoin
No, we aren't destroying bitcoin! We are saving it! 
Take it easy. It is only a game. Like poker or baseball.
Somebody wins, somebody loses.
New experimental SIGHASH_SINGLE encoding
The motivation is less bytes hashed = faster verification. (Very negligible per tx, but it all adds up).
You *should* do the last step. SIGHASH_NONE | SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAYThe motivation is less bytes hashed = faster verification. (Very negligible per tx, but it all adds up).
How can I help you?
My religion and my wife... both of them disallow me to send btc to miners via OP_RETURN
So I can not create and broadcast such transactions myself.
But I like your efforts and want to help
Will take some hard work but it appears this is all worth it after all
Congrats, you've got 0.0017BTC spread across 170 UTXOs.
But I don't think this will be worthwhile for you. I'm busy double-spending the rest of your transactions. For example, this tx (3 confs) double spends your tx here. In the same block I double spent 351 more of your txs. Amaclin is also busy triple spending them. And that's not counting all the other conflicting transactions...
Edit: To add insult to injury, block #374668 double spends 2080 of your transactions.
New experimental SIGHASH_SINGLE encoding, e.g. a6e45fea2b67cf8ff85c0fcf13b477db3966cd5c19ce113a6894dbd107513ba4.
The motivation is less bytes hashed = faster verification. (Very negligible per tx, but it all adds up).
The motivation is less bytes hashed = faster verification. (Very negligible per tx, but it all adds up).
i guess the op ran away ..he is not active from the very first day after the opening of the thread ,
do anyone expect more giveaway or better to call a jamming test here?
Seems to me (but I can not prove it now) that the OP gave us all his private keys already.do anyone expect more giveaway or better to call a jamming test here?
I do not see any address which was used for dust outputs and still untouched by withdrawals from it.
There are 791 account, and it is too difficult to check them all manually.
I was talking about coinwallet.eu, not you...The 200BTC "giveaway".
I do not know where you took the number 200.Seems to me that the sum is much smaller. I am too lazy and I do not have any reason to calculate their spending.
May be is was 200, but a big part of this sum went to fees while splitting to dust.
Here, the OP:
....cut...
Tomorrow’s test will not occur as planned. CoinWallet.eu will not be sending a single transaction. Instead, we will be giving away over 200 Bitcoins to the community. Previous tests have involved splitting bitcoins into hundreds of thousands of tiny outputs. Now, as a gift to the community, all of the private keys that contain those outputs will be posted publicly, making the coins free for the taking.
...cut...
Tomorrow’s test will not occur as planned. CoinWallet.eu will not be sending a single transaction. Instead, we will be giving away over 200 Bitcoins to the community. Previous tests have involved splitting bitcoins into hundreds of thousands of tiny outputs. Now, as a gift to the community, all of the private keys that contain those outputs will be posted publicly, making the coins free for the taking.
...cut...
I dont know if someone has verified this
i guess the op ran away ..he is not active from the very first day after the opening of the thread , do anyone expect more giveaway or better to call a jamming test here?
I was talking about coinwallet.eu, not you...The 200BTC "giveaway".
I do not know where you took the number 200.Seems to me that the sum is much smaller. I am too lazy and I do not have any reason to calculate their spending.
May be is was 200, but a big part of this sum went to fees while splitting to dust.
The problem was that the amount of bitcoins were already split to a small outputs - too late for SIGOPS-attack.
I do not have any information about future spam-attacks.
I do not know people who want to waste their bitcoins for a next "stress-tests"
And of course I do not have 200 btc.
I was talking about coinwallet.eu, not you...The 200BTC "giveaway".
Quote
And we (both you and me) know how bitcoin network can resist in case of this attack.
The miners will likely react to a prolonged attack.
"I'll try a syllogism"
In my language the "syllogizm" is a "statement of the two preconditions"this was an example of bad logic and spreading rumors, not a syllogizm
In my language too, indeed it wasn't a right syllogism, for that I was joking. But I realize what you mean, I'll edit that message.
Jump to: