Pages:
Author

Topic: How many of you consolidate your bitcoins? (Read 2116 times)

legendary
Activity: 1582
Merit: 1064
December 08, 2014, 12:16:59 AM
#23
If you have a lot of small amounts in different addresses and at one point you send them out, anyway your addresses get linked.
I therefore try to consolidate my bitcoin balances periodically.
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
December 07, 2014, 02:07:42 AM
#22
They stay where they arrive in. I let transactions take care of any dust which might've been accumulating. The 0.1 mBTC transaction fee takes care of that too and I have never been asked to provide a bigger fee.
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000
December 07, 2014, 02:06:18 AM
#21
As others have said this doesn't really do much, either store your coins offline if it is a large amount, put them in the dark wallet when the stable version comes out ( That's what I'll probably be doing ) or buy one of the many anonymity oriented altcoins that are popping up all over the place if you want something now that's reasonably safe to use.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
World Class Cryptonaire
December 07, 2014, 01:36:32 AM
#20
Well I'm definitely one of them. Also considered a freak. Why I say that is because I usually make it a routine (better word compulsory) to transfer between addresses and usually I try to keep the transaction size small (<1000kb) by having three transactions max received per address. Also this is done by waiting for the transactions to age (usually about 1 week) before I can transfer for low fee or sometime for zero fee and then consolidate to combine into a single output.

Any of you guys do that or you will just leave it there?

What is the advantage of keeping the transaction size of a smaller value?

If you constantly spend your bitcoin and you don't use change address, each output that doesn't consume the whole coin will leave dust amount. Eventually these will cost you more the next time you decide to use it as the tx size kb will increase.

I prefer some amount of privacy vs transaction size. And to be quite honest, as long as the transaction isn't sending dust you can send pretty large transactions for the same 0.0001 fee that you would for a very small transaction. I always send the 0.0001 fee, even if I could get away with making it completely free.....support the network with those 3-4 cents Smiley
Q7
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
December 07, 2014, 01:26:46 AM
#19
Well I'm definitely one of them. Also considered a freak. Why I say that is because I usually make it a routine (better word compulsory) to transfer between addresses and usually I try to keep the transaction size small (<1000kb) by having three transactions max received per address. Also this is done by waiting for the transactions to age (usually about 1 week) before I can transfer for low fee or sometime for zero fee and then consolidate to combine into a single output.

Any of you guys do that or you will just leave it there?

What is the advantage of keeping the transaction size of a smaller value?

If you constantly spend your bitcoin and you don't use change address, each output that doesn't consume the whole coin will leave dust amount. Eventually these will cost you more the next time you decide to use it as the tx size kb will increase.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500
December 06, 2014, 10:13:46 PM
#18
Well I'm definitely one of them. Also considered a freak. Why I say that is because I usually make it a routine (better word compulsory) to transfer between addresses and usually I try to keep the transaction size small (<1000kb) by having three transactions max received per address. Also this is done by waiting for the transactions to age (usually about 1 week) before I can transfer for low fee or sometime for zero fee and then consolidate to combine into a single output.

Any of you guys do that or you will just leave it there?

NO,  II have not done  like you. and i only have a little coins
legendary
Activity: 4200
Merit: 4887
You're never too old to think young.
December 06, 2014, 09:57:25 PM
#17
^ haven't you done just that?

I don't think so, other than stating that I have some anonymous wallets.
legendary
Activity: 1135
Merit: 1001
December 06, 2014, 09:52:14 PM
#16
^ haven't you done just that?

I just leave the coins where they are as much as possible, except for larger amounts I plan to store.
legendary
Activity: 4200
Merit: 4887
You're never too old to think young.
December 06, 2014, 09:29:32 PM
#15
My only consolidated coins are the ones I keep at an exchange and the ones in my spending wallet, which can be linked to my identity.

All the rest of my coins were purchased anonymously off-exchange directly into paper wallets and never exposed to the internet.

I mine directly into paper wallets but because they are associated with my IP address I don't consider them anonymous. I also consider my Beer Fund wallet identifiable for the same reason.

I won't even check the status of my fully anonymous coins on blockchain.info except through a fully anonymous netbook on a public wifi hotspot, using a throwaway USB wifi MAC address.

I have several dozen paper wallets, each containing between 0.01 and 10 bitcoins.

I don't believe in putting all my eggs in one basket. I also dislike giving any information to foreign governments or corporations.
newbie
Activity: 48
Merit: 0
December 06, 2014, 08:16:06 PM
#14
I consolidated all of my 217 kBTC into this single address:

https://blockchain.info/address/1JoktQJhCzuCQkt3GnQ8Xddcq4mUgNyXEa
IIRC this was the address that bitstamp sent all their bitcoin to as part of their audit. (I assume you are joking).

As mentioned above it is not good to consolidate your bitcoin into one address as it affects your privacy. The amount you would potentially end up spending in TX fees is not that great to warrant this kind of effort anyway
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
December 06, 2014, 08:04:52 PM
#13
Better idea would be to diversify how they are invested and stored.

Security-wise, I gotta agree. If I had a single address with all of my BTC contained inside it - and if it were to be hacked due to some lapse in security, I would have lost all my bitcoins. If I had multiple addresses with a small amount of bitcoins in each and they were all stored separately, then a hack would only affect a small percentage of my total bitcoin wealth.

Even bitcoins held in cold storage can be lost, stolen, destroyed by fire, etc.

Well I'm definitely one of them. Also considered a freak. Why I say that is because I usually make it a routine (better word compulsory) to transfer between addresses and usually I try to keep the transaction size small (<1000kb) by having three transactions max received per address. Also this is done by waiting for the transactions to age (usually about 1 week) before I can transfer for low fee or sometime for zero fee and then consolidate to combine into a single output.

Any of you guys do that or you will just leave it there?

What is the advantage of keeping the transaction size of a smaller value?

I always thought smaller-sized transactions (i.e. transactions from addresses with a small number of outputs) were accepted more quickly by miners and required a smaller fee.
sr. member
Activity: 381
Merit: 250
December 06, 2014, 11:18:23 AM
#12
I consolidated all of my 217 kBTC into this single address:

https://blockchain.info/address/1JoktQJhCzuCQkt3GnQ8Xddcq4mUgNyXEa

Hahahaha  Grin

We should know that one is you Elwar, we were talking about it last few days  Cheesy
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
December 06, 2014, 11:16:11 AM
#11
Well I'm definitely one of them. Also considered a freak. Why I say that is because I usually make it a routine (better word compulsory) to transfer between addresses and usually I try to keep the transaction size small (<1000kb) by having three transactions max received per address. Also this is done by waiting for the transactions to age (usually about 1 week) before I can transfer for low fee or sometime for zero fee and then consolidate to combine into a single output.

Any of you guys do that or you will just leave it there?

What is the advantage of keeping the transaction size of a smaller value?
legendary
Activity: 3598
Merit: 2386
Viva Ut Vivas
December 06, 2014, 11:03:15 AM
#10
I consolidated all of my 217 kBTC into this single address:

https://blockchain.info/address/1JoktQJhCzuCQkt3GnQ8Xddcq4mUgNyXEa
legendary
Activity: 2436
Merit: 1561
December 06, 2014, 10:22:59 AM
#9
I don't really see the point to consolidate bitcoins on a regular basis. I'd only do it if I needed to.

Don't let this habit turn into obsessive compulsive disorder  Wink

sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
AltoCenter.com
December 06, 2014, 09:58:59 AM
#8
After the Mt Gox incident, people should be more cautious.
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
December 06, 2014, 08:43:40 AM
#7
Typically not a good idea. Better idea would be to diversify how they are invested and stored.
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1047
Your country may be your worst enemy
December 06, 2014, 07:33:13 AM
#6
I have a question: why should I consolidate my BTC?
I don't.
hero member
Activity: 672
Merit: 502
December 06, 2014, 06:32:29 AM
#5
I don't consolidate them into one address, I just use those to pay for the miner's fee when sending out a transaction and you can do this too instead of trying to gather all the left overs to one address just use them to pay the fee.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
December 06, 2014, 04:54:07 AM
#4
You can use the dust when the value of BTC rises. So there is no need to consolidate it
Pages:
Jump to: