Not sure if you want the whole file or not but this fragment is from the armorylog.txt that shows a transaction fee that took BTC0.00147514:
2017-02-28 21:49 (INFO) -- (PPRINT from ArmoryQt.py:3491)
01000000 015c89d4 298bb8e4 3e44c4e3 69e85af6 9e052782 c01a5f26 dc593c22
eb5d22d0 b1010000 008b4830 45022100 917d598a 08fb6781 1ad390de d7368002
03d0c951 f5f9239c 4865de78 5f06098e 02207ec2 691c27fd 429dae77 bdba2540
98133d24 eadcf6c7 705fd750 8ee951f5 67fc0141 04a6bdb9 7c6883c9 d9a85a19
ebb062e3 7f5d0b05 e0468b3d a74e1c8b de022f4a edcba058 98f0ac47 7b8dec38
15ad1ecb 56f32642 22481c96 d6ef4e33 47ed7d1c 3dffffff ff0257e5 0a0b0000
00001976 a9140f4c 321b27b1 228cca9b c9578173 c13d1349 d4c188ac 48ce2f00
00000000 1976a914 c1d8cd12 ff4e80a4 7b0fbbf2 8f7f0085 e49f1749 88ac0000
0000
2017-02-28 21:49 (INFO) -- (PPRINT from ArmoryQt.py:3492)
Transaction:
TxHash: 1d49c1454f0c83851f57a71d94d731aaf579f939bd153e099589a28f5a46da32 (BE)
Version: 1
nInputs: 1
nOutputs: 2
LockTime: 0
Inputs:
PyTxIn:
PrevTxHash: b1d0225deb223c59dc265f1ac08227059ef65ae869e3c4443ee4b88b29d4895c (BE)
TxOutIndex: 1
Script: (483045022100917d598a08fb67811ad390ded736800203d0c951f5f9239c4865)
Sender: 16iTPUcUhn6ggjYggtvcdHBb8V6fH3Hvvw
Seq: 4294967295
Outputs:
TxOut:
Value: 185263447 (1.85263447)
Script: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 (12PtR3s5u4Z2aaFggeaNHVW7997AiwZLki) OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
TxOut:
Value: 3133000 (0.03133)
Script: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 (1Jfy8dJ7Jrbzfqihwqs3TKGifkUDsgCbao) OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
2017-02-28 21:49 (INFO) -- ArmoryQt.py:3496 - Sending Tx, 32da465a8fa28995093e15bd39f979f5aa31d7941da7571f85830c4f45c1491d
2017-02-28 21:49 (INFO) -- ArmoryQt.py:3506 - Transaction sent to Satoshi client...!
2017-02-28 21:49 (INFO) -- ArmoryQt.py:6264 - Bitcoins Sent!
Amount: 0.03280514 BTC
From: Wallet "Primary Wallet" (bZ4MzTUs)
To: 1Jfy8dJ7Jrbzfqihwqs3TKGifkUDsgCbao
The dblog.txt file was also long and mostly did not look too exciting. Not sure if you want the whole file. It mostly looked like:
Log file opened at 1488413921: C:\Users\Art\AppData\Roaming\Armory\dbLog.txt
-INFO - 1488413921: (..\main.cpp:23) Running on 4 threads
-INFO - 1488413921: (..\main.cpp:24) Ram usage level: 4
-INFO - 1488413921: (..\BlockUtils.cpp:1338) blkfile dir: E:\data\blockchain\blocks
-INFO - 1488413921: (..\BlockUtils.cpp:1339) lmdb dir: C:\Users\Art\AppData\Roaming\Armory\databases
-INFO - 1488413921: (..\lmdb_wrapper.cpp:388) Opening databases...
-INFO - 1488413922: (..\BlockUtils.cpp:1521) Executing: doInitialSyncOnLoad
-INFO - 1488413922: (..\BitcoinP2P.cpp:783) Connected to Bitcoin node
-INFO - 1488413922: (..\DatabaseBuilder.cpp:169) Reading headers from db
-INFO - 1488413923: (..\BDM_Server.cpp:797) registered bdv: e83f266907ce97d3f5c6
-INFO - 1488413924: (..\DatabaseBuilder.cpp:208) Found 455379 headers in db
-INFO - 1488413926: (..\DatabaseBuilder.cpp:51) updating HEADERS db
-INFO - 1488413928: (..\DatabaseBuilder.cpp:268) parsed block file #788
-INFO - 1488413928: (..\DatabaseBuilder.cpp:268) parsed block file #789
-DEBUG - 1488413928: (..\Blockchain.cpp:242) Organizing chain
-INFO - 1488413928: (..\DatabaseBuilder.cpp:56) updated HEADERS db in 1.738s
-INFO - 1488413928: (..\DatabaseBuilder.cpp:106) scanning new blocks from #455346 to #455345
-INFO - 1488413928: (..\BlockchainScanner.cpp:52) no history to scan
-INFO - 1488413928: (..\BlockchainScanner.cpp:813) no SSH to scan
-INFO - 1488413928: (..\DatabaseBuilder.cpp:156) scanned new blocks in 0.002s
-INFO - 1488413928: (..\DatabaseBuilder.cpp:160) init db in 5.803s
-INFO - 1488413928: (..\BlockUtils.cpp:1636) Enabling zero-conf tracking
-INFO - 1488414050: (..\BlockchainScanner.cpp:650) scanned from height #455346 to #455346
-INFO - 1488414174: (..\BlockchainScanner.cpp:650) scanned from height #455347 to #455347
-INFO - 1488414798: (..\BlockchainScanner.cpp:650) scanned from height #455348 to #455348
-INFO - 1488415075: (..\BlockchainScanner.cpp:650) scanned from height #455349 to #455349
-INFO - 1488415161: (..\BlockchainScanner.cpp:650) scanned from height #455350 to #455350
-INFO - 1488416251: (..\BlockchainScanner.cpp:650) scanned from height #455351 to #455351
-INFO - 1488417552: (..\BlockchainScanner.cpp:650) scanned from height #455352 to #455352
-INFO - 1488417757: (..\BDM_supportClasses.cpp:366) Starting address registration process
-WARN - 1488417757: (..\BDM_supportClasses.cpp:213) Updating ssh last scanned
-INFO - 1488417757: (..\BlockchainScanner.cpp:650) scanned from height #455352 to #455352
-INFO - 1488417757: (..\BDM_supportClasses.cpp:480) Done with side scan of wallet bZ4MzTUs
-INFO - 1488418376: (..\BlockchainScanner.cpp:650) scanned from height #455353 to #455353
-INFO - 1488418649: (..\BlockchainScanner.cpp:650) scanned from height #455354 to #455354
-INFO - 1488418843: (..\BlockchainScanner.cpp:650) scanned from height #455355 to #455355
-INFO - 1488418995: (..\BlockchainScanner.cpp:650) scanned from height #455356 to #455356
-INFO - 1488419430: (..\BlockchainScanner.cpp:650) scanned from height #455357 to #455357
-INFO - 1488419884: (..\BlockchainScanner.cpp:650) scanned from height #455358 to #455358
-INFO - 1488420633: (..\BlockchainScanner.cpp:650) scanned from height #455359 to #455359
Thanks. If you want more or a zip file, let me know.
Topic: Transaction fee calculation (Read 834 times)
Huh. That's an interesting bug. The fee calculation has been moved from the Python code to the C++ code so this bug may no longer exist in 0.96. However, it may still be there so it is worth investigating. Can you provide the armorylog.txt and dbLog.txt?
I am using Armory version 0.95.1-beta-374672b751 and I think the transaction fee is calculating wrong. I wanted a transaction to go through reasonably quick so I chose the Satoshi/Byte option to calculate the fee. It suggested 164.169 so I went with it. The transaction fee calculated was quite high (equivalent around $2) so I was somewhat suspicious but I did not know how many bytes were in the transaction so I let it go through. I later checked it out on a blockchain viewer and it reported the fee that I paid was around 656 Satoshi per Byte, about 4 times too much. Can anyone else confirm this or has this already been addressed?
Jump to: