Topic: Electrum - Bitcoin client for the common users (friendly and instant) - page 17. (Read 110112 times)
March 24, 2013, 03:25:48 AM
It is sorta working but I would not recommend you use it. Coblee hasn't updated it in almost a year and it's super tricky to get a server working because the server side did move on.
March 24, 2013, 02:48:38 AM
is it possible the have multiple output addresses in a single transaction?
this is not possible with the gui, but it is supported by the electrum library
March 24, 2013, 02:47:04 AM
Is this electrum litecoin client working?
https://github.com/litecoin-project/Electrum
https://github.com/litecoin-project/Electrum
March 23, 2013, 07:49:44 AM
is it possible the have multiple output addresses in a single transaction?
March 22, 2013, 10:57:16 PM
One question: Reading "https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Electrum", I have the impression that sending transactions with an offline wallet is only possible with native (i.e. non-imported) addresses (because it involves deseeding and reseeding the wallet).
Is this true? Or is it also possible (or planned) to send offline transactions from imported keys?
I am asking because I would like to use offline transactions using imported addresses generated with a 3rd party tool like bitaddress.org or vanitygen.
Is this true? Or is it also possible (or planned) to send offline transactions from imported keys?
I am asking because I would like to use offline transactions using imported addresses generated with a 3rd party tool like bitaddress.org or vanitygen.
When you deseed your wallet inported privkeys are separated too. Am I right? So it should work also with imported addresses.
Indeed you can create a watch-only wallet by importing your privkeys and then deseeding your wallet to only get balances, but not being able to spend.
So then the correct understanding of the terms is:
* deseed = to detach or remove (all) the private keys from the wallet,
* reseed = to re-attach the private keys to the deseeded wallet,
both irrespective of whether keys are imported or deterministic.
Right?
the "reseed" command does not exist anymore; the wiki is deprecated.
see the documentation in the "docs" directory of electrum.
yes, "deseed" will not only remove your seed but also all private keys
March 22, 2013, 07:54:06 PM
One question: Reading "https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Electrum", I have the impression that sending transactions with an offline wallet is only possible with native (i.e. non-imported) addresses (because it involves deseeding and reseeding the wallet).
Is this true? Or is it also possible (or planned) to send offline transactions from imported keys?
I am asking because I would like to use offline transactions using imported addresses generated with a 3rd party tool like bitaddress.org or vanitygen.
Is this true? Or is it also possible (or planned) to send offline transactions from imported keys?
I am asking because I would like to use offline transactions using imported addresses generated with a 3rd party tool like bitaddress.org or vanitygen.
When you deseed your wallet inported privkeys are separated too. Am I right? So it should work also with imported addresses.
Indeed you can create a watch-only wallet by importing your privkeys and then deseeding your wallet to only get balances, but not being able to spend.
So then the correct understanding of the terms is:
* deseed = to detach or remove (all) the private keys from the wallet,
* reseed = to re-attach the private keys to the deseeded wallet,
both irrespective of whether keys are imported or deterministic.
Right?
March 22, 2013, 07:17:37 PM
One question: Reading "https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Electrum", I have the impression that sending transactions with an offline wallet is only possible with native (i.e. non-imported) addresses (because it involves deseeding and reseeding the wallet).
Is this true? Or is it also possible (or planned) to send offline transactions from imported keys?
I am asking because I would like to use offline transactions using imported addresses generated with a 3rd party tool like bitaddress.org or vanitygen.
Is this true? Or is it also possible (or planned) to send offline transactions from imported keys?
I am asking because I would like to use offline transactions using imported addresses generated with a 3rd party tool like bitaddress.org or vanitygen.
When you deseed your wallet inported privkeys are separated too. Am I right? So it should work also with imported addresses.
Indeed you can create a watch-only wallet by importing your privkeys and then deseeding your wallet to only get balances, but not being able to spend.
March 22, 2013, 07:06:40 PM
One question: Reading "https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Electrum", I have the impression that sending transactions with an offline wallet is only possible with native (i.e. non-imported) addresses (because it involves deseeding and reseeding the wallet).
Is this true? Or is it also possible (or planned) to send offline transactions from imported keys?
I am asking because I would like to use offline transactions using imported addresses generated with a 3rd party tool like bitaddress.org or vanitygen.
Is this true? Or is it also possible (or planned) to send offline transactions from imported keys?
I am asking because I would like to use offline transactions using imported addresses generated with a 3rd party tool like bitaddress.org or vanitygen.
March 22, 2013, 05:32:56 PM
yeah but what happens if i do so? Will the transaction be forever in my wallet, hangin on? Anyway i switched over many times to different F(ull) servers and finally (magically as well) the rejected transaction vanished and one last got accepted. Thanks for developping Electrum 
If you switch to another server and a transaction wasnt accepted by a node then the other server wont know the transaction so he cant show it. Only if one is accepted by a node it has the chance to find a miner that will include it into blockchain. And a transaction that doesnt get accepted probably never will be accepted. At least my transactions stayed there for days.
I already asked the developers if the fee isnt too high, because nowadays you only can pay down to a worth of $0.64 without paying a fee. It sounded to me like a problem for small transactions. But it looks like its not possible to go around otherwise the blockchain will grow way bigger.
If youre interested in the answers: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155996.new;topicseen#new
March 22, 2013, 05:27:22 PM
yeah but what happens if i do so? Will the transaction be forever in my wallet, hangin on? Anyway i switched over many times to different F(ull) servers and finally (magically as well) the rejected transaction vanished and one last got accepted. Thanks for developping Electrum
March 22, 2013, 11:46:13 AM
@stepkrav... if you didnt use a fee of 0.0005BTC and your transaction is below 0.01BTC then it probably wont be accepted by a node and wont be known to blockchain.info. I cant say why one transaction was rejected.
March 22, 2013, 10:54:49 AM
The problem is that i have outgoing transactions in history from a specific address of mine, with 0 confirmations and blockchain.info doesn't know about. I guess it wasn't broadcasted for some reason? May i cancel it ?
actually i found the last of the 3 uncofirmed in Rejected Inventory of blockchain.info.
Quote
631360e8938f777cac32bba00408b5dec45021d3f61aef661d005525d38662d9
ConnectInputs() : mapTransactions prev not found 1996c97da2bfb6324e90b57a9251ed79db86904cc1788fcf4e17b7c02d93eb33
2013-03-22 16:04:30
ConnectInputs() : mapTransactions prev not found 1996c97da2bfb6324e90b57a9251ed79db86904cc1788fcf4e17b7c02d93eb33
2013-03-22 16:04:30
update : switched to different Full servers. Two of the three unconfirmed transactions disappeared. Still one is there. Blockchain.info never heard of it.
March 21, 2013, 04:12:55 PM
are you using a 1.6 client, or 1.7 ?
in 1.6, a miscalculation may happen and result in that.
it happens if you have imported keys, made transactions where those imported keys were co-input with electrum native keys, and then restored your wallet from seed, or deleted the imported key (even on full servers)
I believe if is fixed in 1.7. otherwise let me know
in 1.6, a miscalculation may happen and result in that.
it happens if you have imported keys, made transactions where those imported keys were co-input with electrum native keys, and then restored your wallet from seed, or deleted the imported key (even on full servers)
I believe if is fixed in 1.7. otherwise let me know
I'm using 1.7.1. I'm pretty sure i haven't imported any private keys into this wallet nor have i restored it from seed. Hmmm.
If it helps i observed something else. I made 3 small transactions with no fee, that were taking long to be confirmed. I shutdown electrum and some hours later i opened it again. Now 2 of 3 were confirmed and showing up in history and the 3rd was nowhere. Instead this message about "pruned transactions" had shown up in history. After rebooting again, i can see the 3rd transaction, not confirmed yet, and the "pruned" message.
oh, then I think it's normal. one of your pending transactions was pruned because all its outputs were spent.
visit a full server if you want to view your complete history.
March 21, 2013, 02:11:16 PM
are you using a 1.6 client, or 1.7 ?
in 1.6, a miscalculation may happen and result in that.
it happens if you have imported keys, made transactions where those imported keys were co-input with electrum native keys, and then restored your wallet from seed, or deleted the imported key (even on full servers)
I believe if is fixed in 1.7. otherwise let me know
in 1.6, a miscalculation may happen and result in that.
it happens if you have imported keys, made transactions where those imported keys were co-input with electrum native keys, and then restored your wallet from seed, or deleted the imported key (even on full servers)
I believe if is fixed in 1.7. otherwise let me know
I'm using 1.7.1. I'm pretty sure i haven't imported any private keys into this wallet nor have i restored it from seed. Hmmm.
If it helps i observed something else. I made 3 small transactions with no fee, that were taking long to be confirmed. I shutdown electrum and some hours later i opened it again. Now 2 of 3 were confirmed and showing up in history and the 3rd was nowhere. Instead this message about "pruned transactions" had shown up in history. After rebooting again, i can see the 3rd transaction, not confirmed yet, and the "pruned" message.
March 21, 2013, 12:15:31 PM
any idea about that https://i.imgur.com/nqOoZ3a.png showing up in History tab ?
are you using a 1.6 client, or 1.7 ?
in 1.6, a miscalculation may happen and result in that.
it happens if you have imported keys, made transactions where those imported keys were co-input with electrum native keys, and then restored your wallet from seed, or deleted the imported key (even on full servers)
I believe if is fixed in 1.7. otherwise let me know
March 21, 2013, 11:24:06 AM
any idea about that https://i.imgur.com/nqOoZ3a.png showing up in History tab ?
Switch to a "F"ull server, synchronize and then the entry should be "cleared" (afterwards you can switch back to your original server if you you like).
March 21, 2013, 10:54:40 AM
any idea about that https://i.imgur.com/nqOoZ3a.png showing up in History tab ?
March 21, 2013, 10:14:06 AM
...
do you know that there is some documentation about Bitcoin fees?
maybe you could read it?
this is a Bitcoin related question, completely off topic for this thread.
I didnt have problems with small transactions even though i never used a fee. So i had to ask whats the problem. Sorry to disturb you. I wont mention it again.
March 21, 2013, 10:04:18 AM
...
do you know that there is some documentation about Bitcoin fees?
maybe you could read it?
this is a Bitcoin related question, completely off topic for this thread.
March 21, 2013, 10:02:07 AM
Spam protection is not tied to you personally.
But it is to prevent that thousands of sathoshi-transactions flood the network isnt it? So does this mean at all the time before there were so many small transactions that they see it as an attack and doesnt include the small transactions? If that isnt solveable by using a satoshi as fee (i try this now) then small transactions wont be possible. Taking into account that small transactions wont become less with a bigger userbase and taking into that once the demand is high enough the points after the dot will be raised (maybe millisatoshi) to get more money that can flow that looks like a problem. Because that works against each other. Am i wrong?
At least one satoshi as fee should make it possible to dont go into spam protection. Because with such a fee it isnt possible to ddos effectively.
Jump to: