Topic: Electrum - Bitcoin client for the common users (friendly and instant) - page 18. (Read 110104 times)
March 21, 2013, 09:32:54 AM
Spam protection is not tied to you personally.
March 21, 2013, 09:28:23 AM
Ok, it looks like the transaction from asicminer had a fee too, but over a bunch of small transactions: https://blockchain.info/tx/f372136456a3683587f184b62249e614367d8cd5ea39f9b81e5d43cd14b6a8da
So thats probably an explaination. But its still a bit strange. I mean 0.2BTC without fee are worked up pretty fast but if you want to send a test-transaction you have to send more fee than the transaction is worth itself. Thats nuts somehow and would mean small transactions cant be done. Or would a fee of one satoshi make a difference?
So thats probably an explaination. But its still a bit strange. I mean 0.2BTC without fee are worked up pretty fast but if you want to send a test-transaction you have to send more fee than the transaction is worth itself. Thats nuts somehow and would mean small transactions cant be done. Or would a fee of one satoshi make a difference?
This is just not true as I understand it. 0.2BTC without fee has no bigger chance to get processed then 0.0002BTC as far as I know. It's just a matter of luck.
I believe i first sent 0.000002BTC, then 0.2BTC as donation to an escrow and then 0.00000001BTC as a test again. Only the second thing was fulfilled and that pretty fast. Of course its too less transactions to judge from that but till now i never used fees and didnt plan to because mining still is bringing enough money.
If its only a matter of luck then the second transaction was pretty lucky. I think it got into next block already. And judging from that many blocks gone by for the other transactions. While i think the first transaction is dead now because the server isnt in my list anymore. But the third transaction is there without conf for some days again. That are many blocks.
Maybe i should ask in development thread of the normal nodes if there is a wall somehow.
How can the network make the difference between test transactions and transaction SPAM trying to DoS the blockchain?
Test transactions only exist in your mind: all transactions are real.
Test transactions only exist in your mind: all transactions are real.
I know there is a spam protection. But how could i trigger that if i only made 1 small transaction in days?
March 21, 2013, 09:23:04 AM
Ok, it looks like the transaction from asicminer had a fee too, but over a bunch of small transactions: https://blockchain.info/tx/f372136456a3683587f184b62249e614367d8cd5ea39f9b81e5d43cd14b6a8da
So thats probably an explaination. But its still a bit strange. I mean 0.2BTC without fee are worked up pretty fast but if you want to send a test-transaction you have to send more fee than the transaction is worth itself. Thats nuts somehow and would mean small transactions cant be done. Or would a fee of one satoshi make a difference?
How can the network make the difference between test transactions and transaction SPAM trying to DoS the blockchain?So thats probably an explaination. But its still a bit strange. I mean 0.2BTC without fee are worked up pretty fast but if you want to send a test-transaction you have to send more fee than the transaction is worth itself. Thats nuts somehow and would mean small transactions cant be done. Or would a fee of one satoshi make a difference?
Test transactions only exist in your mind: all transactions are real.
March 21, 2013, 09:19:32 AM
Ok, it looks like the transaction from asicminer had a fee too, but over a bunch of small transactions: https://blockchain.info/tx/f372136456a3683587f184b62249e614367d8cd5ea39f9b81e5d43cd14b6a8da
So thats probably an explaination. But its still a bit strange. I mean 0.2BTC without fee are worked up pretty fast but if you want to send a test-transaction you have to send more fee than the transaction is worth itself. Thats nuts somehow and would mean small transactions cant be done. Or would a fee of one satoshi make a difference?
So thats probably an explaination. But its still a bit strange. I mean 0.2BTC without fee are worked up pretty fast but if you want to send a test-transaction you have to send more fee than the transaction is worth itself. Thats nuts somehow and would mean small transactions cant be done. Or would a fee of one satoshi make a difference?
This is just not true as I understand it. 0.2BTC without fee has no bigger chance to get processed then 0.0002BTC as far as I know. It's just a matter of luck.
March 21, 2013, 09:11:47 AM
Ok, it looks like the transaction from asicminer had a fee too, but over a bunch of small transactions: https://blockchain.info/tx/f372136456a3683587f184b62249e614367d8cd5ea39f9b81e5d43cd14b6a8da
So thats probably an explaination. But its still a bit strange. I mean 0.2BTC without fee are worked up pretty fast but if you want to send a test-transaction you have to send more fee than the transaction is worth itself. Thats nuts somehow and would mean small transactions cant be done. Or would a fee of one satoshi make a difference?
So thats probably an explaination. But its still a bit strange. I mean 0.2BTC without fee are worked up pretty fast but if you want to send a test-transaction you have to send more fee than the transaction is worth itself. Thats nuts somehow and would mean small transactions cant be done. Or would a fee of one satoshi make a difference?
March 21, 2013, 09:01:48 AM
Code:
78c616dffe7b4fd30788e3c721e37a543a80ef55790e38134563b6f192522d3c
so, I decided to decode that for you:
Code:
{
"inputs": [
{
"address": "12HMTWSXTX9aQCBU6kRAZU5MwgNmGr8HjS",
"prevout_hash": "14be8b3f7257ef80633580a96b25a48c01dfdb7db476d87f30eee4df4fc73b6c",
"prevout_n": 35,
"sequence": 4294967295,
}
],
"lockTime": 0,
"outputs": [
{
"address": "1PouBPPf25kkS8VHgmYa4Ta62UXU7iomVc",
"index": 0,
"raw_output_script": "76a914fa31755858f134cefcd2722e9f3eb1b1fbbce90a88ac",
"value": 1
},
{
"address": "1HvXPqcKM891wpHpBg3M8FWyJKPnCcuNhb",
"index": 1,
"raw_output_script": "76a914b9a16e111aaec38c69de1c273d4c56ef519edb7788ac",
"value": 2978007199
}
],
"version": 1
}
So, your total output is 2978007199 + 1 = 2978007200 satoshis. According to blockchain.info, your input had 2978007200 satoshis too.
This means that you decided to pay zero fee to miners for your transaction.
Good luck with that...
I wrote above that the most likely cause for the rejection of your first transaction was insufficient fee.
Even though I did not write it explicitly, I was implying that your new transaction should include a fee.
March 21, 2013, 08:21:50 AM
Nothing changed. I now wait for days again to send 1 satoshi to another address. And nothing happens whil higher things like 1BTC or 0.2BTC as a donation goes through.
I got asicminer dividends too and the test-transaction got confirmations very fast too. My roommate got 0.0000002BTC this way and got his first conf very fast too. And she is using the exact same version of electrum. 1.6.2 with -w-param to use the same electrum.dat in linux and windows.
So i dont know where to search the problem. Is the problem with the nodes that dont accept the small transaction or is it some error in electrum or the electrum server software?
The full server of electrum.datemas.de isnt available anymore so i cant see the old transaction but the second transaction still waits at ecdsa.org with id
So is it really the node when other transactions from outside that are even smaller gets a conf very fast but 2 of my transactions on 2 servers doesnt get any?
I got asicminer dividends too and the test-transaction got confirmations very fast too. My roommate got 0.0000002BTC this way and got his first conf very fast too. And she is using the exact same version of electrum. 1.6.2 with -w-param to use the same electrum.dat in linux and windows.
So i dont know where to search the problem. Is the problem with the nodes that dont accept the small transaction or is it some error in electrum or the electrum server software?
The full server of electrum.datemas.de isnt available anymore so i cant see the old transaction but the second transaction still waits at ecdsa.org with id
Code:
78c616dffe7b4fd30788e3c721e37a543a80ef55790e38134563b6f192522d3c
So is it really the node when other transactions from outside that are even smaller gets a conf very fast but 2 of my transactions on 2 servers doesnt get any?
March 20, 2013, 06:21:57 AM
I tried now on server ecdsa.org and again nothing. It waits till days.
Ah... now i get it i believe... its not that the nodes or electrum server knows the transaction its the satoshis that were sent already to another place. So because it cant be sent to another place twice the other transaction has to be a double spend. I was puzzled how the nodes could know that an transaction is the same. But the transaction to change-address isnt done too.
But i dont see that it works on the other server too. Should i ask the developers of bitcoin wallet because the nodes dont accept the transaction? I mean i know there is a floodprotection in the nodes but in this test-cases i think it shouldnt be triggered.
Ah... now i get it i believe... its not that the nodes or electrum server knows the transaction its the satoshis that were sent already to another place. So because it cant be sent to another place twice the other transaction has to be a double spend. I was puzzled how the nodes could know that an transaction is the same. But the transaction to change-address isnt done too.
But i dont see that it works on the other server too. Should i ask the developers of bitcoin wallet because the nodes dont accept the transaction? I mean i know there is a floodprotection in the nodes but in this test-cases i think it shouldnt be triggered.
March 20, 2013, 05:14:15 AM
I mean he had to know that its not needed anymore and that the new transaction replaces the old one.
bitcoin does that. it's called a double spend.
For that it does have to be the same sender and the same target plus the same amount? That wouldnt be possible then if using change addresses right?
no, no, no, no....
a double spend means that you are trying to spend the same money twice.
if you broadcast a new transaction, it will conflict with the one that's still in the memory pool of that server. the latter will be removed.
March 19, 2013, 06:22:46 PM
thanks for your answers and for developping this.
March 19, 2013, 05:55:44 PM
Hello, will the freeze option work even if other addresses' balance is 0 ? Thanks
yes.
if you try to do a transaction that would require coins from frozen addresses, Electrum will complain that there are not enough funds.
March 19, 2013, 04:07:23 PM
Hello, will the freeze option work even if other addresses' balance is 0 ? Thanks
I looked over the code and I am fairly certain Electrum will not spend frozen adresses even if other adresses are at zero. It looks to me that all the frozen addresses are removed as possible inputs.
March 19, 2013, 03:58:42 PM
Hello, will the freeze option work even if other addresses' balance is 0 ? Thanks
March 19, 2013, 07:30:20 AM
I mean he had to know that its not needed anymore and that the new transaction replaces the old one.
bitcoin does that. it's called a double spend.
For that it does have to be the same sender and the same target plus the same amount? That wouldnt be possible then if using change addresses right?
March 19, 2013, 07:12:51 AM
I mean he had to know that its not needed anymore and that the new transaction replaces the old one.
bitcoin does that. it's called a double spend.
March 19, 2013, 07:08:59 AM
3 days now and only electrum.datemas.de knows the transaction. No other server nor blockchain.info knows anything. Thats not normal isnt it?
if your transaction is unconfirmed, and only exists at one server, that means that it was not propagated through the network.
there might be various reasons for that (the most common cause is insufficient fee)
To fix this situation, use another server.
The first transaction you will do will, when it gets confirmed, invalidate the unconfirmed transaction that is still in electrum.datemas.de's memory, and it will disappear from there.
Ok, with such a small amount it wouldnt be a risk if 2 transactions would be run. But how can the one server delete the first transaction? I mean he had to know that its not needed anymore and that the new transaction replaces the old one.
But its still strange. Is it the fault of this server? Maybe he didnt give it forward or should connect to more nodes or is it the fault of the nodes that dont accept the transaction? So that maybe the bitcoin client has to be changed. I mean if you first has to get the mercy of a node to propagate and then have to wait for the mercy of a miner to include the transaction it sounds somewhat unstable for me.
So where to search the problem? I mean a currency that is blocking a transaction for a reason you dont know and cant change?
I will try another server now.
March 19, 2013, 03:38:33 AM
3 days now and only electrum.datemas.de knows the transaction. No other server nor blockchain.info knows anything. Thats not normal isnt it?
if your transaction is unconfirmed, and only exists at one server, that means that it was not propagated through the network.
there might be various reasons for that (the most common cause is insufficient fee)
To fix this situation, use another server.
The first transaction you will do will, when it gets confirmed, invalidate the unconfirmed transaction that is still in electrum.datemas.de's memory, and it will disappear from there.
March 18, 2013, 09:18:33 PM
3 days now and only electrum.datemas.de knows the transaction. No other server nor blockchain.info knows anything. Thats not normal isnt it?
March 17, 2013, 09:17:50 AM
Strange... then maybe the servers should connect to more nodes so that one of them accepts the transaction. I mean if the transaction isnt spread into the net then no miner can try to include it into the next mined block. That wouldnt be ideal for a currency i think.
By the way... what node is this? Are these the normal bitcoin wallets? How can they decide to not propagate a transaction? I didnt spam the network or anything. It was a single, small transaction.
Strange thing... i hope something can be done here because one has to trust that transactions are being able to process. Even though it can take a while with no fee and small transaction. But a node that decides not to accept? Doesnt sound like a good thing to me.
By the way... what node is this? Are these the normal bitcoin wallets? How can they decide to not propagate a transaction? I didnt spam the network or anything. It was a single, small transaction.
Strange thing... i hope something can be done here because one has to trust that transactions are being able to process. Even though it can take a while with no fee and small transaction. But a node that decides not to accept? Doesnt sound like a good thing to me.
March 17, 2013, 08:51:18 AM
Jump to: