This was built using Gitian with sipa's build script
Can you provide more details? I tryed to compile on a VMWare Ubuntu myself, but got errors 
Topic: [UPDATE: 2015-05-10] Bitcoin Core soft-fork "No Forced TX Fee" v0.10.1 available - page 4. (Read 59262 times)
May 25, 2013, 04:48:56 AM
May 24, 2013, 08:00:05 PM
Would be much easier to everyone, if anybody will provide compiled binaries for Windows... 
Would be much easier to everyone, if anybody will provide compiled binaries for Windows...
Well that surely won't be me. I don't use "legacy technologies from twentieth century" as somebody stated on this forums.
https://mega.co.nz/#!PoY2WRra!EdDJ-Sx50lnlyMsKcp95dD7xHPgQW5pBys2jG30v29o
Code:
641099e1ea931f05622fad52a4e9196d5ae05b0f28311fc1dbda1093a67b1d68 bitcoin-nftf-v0.8.1-win32-setup.exe
6333f1e71e029928695adfe8b803d17765fc6df68b0e9b5ca5e4671437b60b75 bitcoin-nftf-v0.8.1-win32.zip
6333f1e71e029928695adfe8b803d17765fc6df68b0e9b5ca5e4671437b60b75 bitcoin-nftf-v0.8.1-win32.zip
This was built using Gitian with sipa's build script on a VMWare Ubuntu VM, running on a Windows 7 host machine. Audits are always welcome.
May 23, 2013, 10:57:54 AM
64 transactions! Overall sum just 0.03297843 BTC!
SIZE 2.333 kB for almost nothing !!
Fee 0.0015
http://blockexplorer.com/b/237507
http://blockexplorer.com/address/1GfV8CBz6rhKAzPRVt4jYiJLdghmvWptfR
A system taken seriously should not allow (or enforce??) such obvious nonsens at all.
And how is that related to this topic ?
If you haven't noticed, my fork takes LESS fees than the standard client.
Please discuss this in a thread dedicated to the STANDARD Bitcoin-Qt client, not NFTF client.
This topic is for discussion & support for the NFTF client fork.
May 23, 2013, 08:06:30 AM
Example
in Block 237507 of what they seem trying to avoid by (illegal) fees.
FROM
1GfV8CBz6rhKAzPRVt4jYiJLdghmvWptfR: 0.03297843 BTC
TO
141QGt4Jdv6E9LfLZiit7apEMH4oMZyPhr: 0.00001284
1FKa4kXa9Md1aHhdv69sr4kxax5Lq4h5zd: 0.0000056
1BigfdEypPZhwJUNzczxpxnQo9zYD6csx9: 0.00001503
1Fr615TbhJkm7XyUstLZsCw6SvvVnTR54t: 0.00002004
1FjtGtUKthUeCQCiGk6Lb53oLiQ5TVNEAt: 0.00000084
1NpFcfEASDb37NKHKVq7BgcLQ4zEfRg5Hw: 0.00002
19sZFk65dcx5qromyMf2kiB6ZWiY8u4Fad: 0.00000933
1KnkAj8ZdfwfzbGXBCE6rXeXfPo2e7GkxD: 0.00001244
1Mz8YUzuQxmHsfzBTbuJWa94d9GgpU2TxZ: 0.000008
189NhDqUik7xZjmAsyQu6oKenkiZdW8Taj: 0.0000128
18ZabaHrk9vN4PmeeHdv6aAwiGRQJBe2r5: 0.00000844
1J3fJNEV44KEsNUAdiezgf8j4JMsjreMSL: 0.0000063
18nCk22gaDdoYMLSQeWniJzKSjXY9HyGpt: 0.000004
1BX99EyvTvuppuzCGNbazUSaZY2SseyW6g: 0.0000168
16GP7fynpDwZ5oJzxoaBgSznPXqffNpNdt: 0.00007593
12RcTF6ctVP5X8eyUgFjYT2jCH9x5tctB8: 0.000016
19hQVhYWrfEA556SwUCusPniRbmVP1eGFk: 0.000024
12u5yY61jKB69kPFNJ5X2oteToqvRmBPac: 0.03084699
1B3n6VrdEL6wAkazQiJyQURr9MmghBxUEy: 0.00000696
1LYruivHBrytSpTCc5D5yNyCnjbu44ZTRf: 0.00000928
1JUHUfAHp5MC4j5AYTDGKqjCgx8aKHwit7: 0.0000124
17y73HGotoaTqkHTGzPz3FLjxKNqhf4BXH: 0.0000052
1KpwLakFPPqWWdzZzCBMnFsMvJYRMrNhYr: 0.00001233
186S2y3KohhntZ3haQoJSFN7Sf9Z5tCkYx: 0.00002
13PuBaRxigpaGukx7v13Bdv7Vaq8gSiEvn: 0.000012
1GgMNzdtdVUUdfzL9PyDDudcKTYQaUeS9F: 0.000016
16JKP7btSgSuUH5tF79AJbBYdcnrtDyNxs: 0.000027
1FfpPLJjcvqnf4WLsrQCKifyn45bbvmp9j: 0.000008
1NdkCfxSyHdiVumZGEy28axi2GiWHfuUf4: 0.00000084
1CM1UJ3Esm4ahkZrLk8fFQZ9wkQSeoCaef: 0.0000044
1PFeyR5Xu2y9XwFME6437SkfrW9G3RNrkk: 0.00002
1G74ncDur2aXvdbg99fhKte7BfP9fGeqLJ: 0.0000004
1DeP5PdKuqv7SsFSezsJtfzRJ2YfFW5zFY: 0.000004
1DZECBjBY3kPV4PrEzWn5DhExSr21ixT7E: 0.00002
17nzCMQUsC6sWGDrWNEpiCjeKb33pFEZ5L: 0.0000044
1JhBeo6ndvHJocEaTy4Ejco358xg9THaQD: 0.0000039
1AzUHRmX3yLt3Zw3BSSXtQ5yoo1dHDHTGv: 0.0000052
1MxMu8DoZeVttGBAX4Cg66oU6U4KiaFtVV: 0.0000069
1CxyTQtVomgAFput7WRQ6Hz2m9AeBz71zD: 0.0000092
1KT9EbpRYkKs9mxDuq1SQEB6BdoagnkjSp: 0.000016
15VMbYAbWVYr3RDyX8rVUUjY21ByoL8zqt: 0.000009
17FBHiYCHzEpCEE8spTbiz4rBAXa8ApNqo: 0.000012
1NhDUhtUWiKSgFaYNg4XHfnoB36MyPC5gA: 0.000024
1Ci375gcXKHSQv1gJ4LoeY6g6LzKZvHPXQ: 0.0000006
1EM8pxA3SjRivyG8JwS11kPhvECtbPxgJU: 0.0000008
1A4tii76NcMFLPdqNNqMgb8hN9U3QjMu1m: 0.00000003
15yEbm1Q2jfNJHv1ss2AJjZVZbohpp4ron: 0.00000004
1L76YBttyLiYPQdTFoASh3MfD2iXvatmLn: 0.000016
1APYYHeQjCNMtPnPyYAEW7f6BxZCvkGfcs: 0.000004
1FdcBichMwFx6C3zjWqgC96j6FTeFocj9L: 0.0000123
1KdqLDhXP7zAS9VMYXicy18z8Mkv8Hddsr: 0.0000164
1aDKbe5jqCqSdCS2AEstqVUcMLxUjnKyV: 0.0000004
19H8pB4BFf9SM1ora1warRskDtuyQm6NZf: 0.000006
18ZWZXUvykZJY8t8gdAqYjvLLqYvNvt5f3: 0.000008
1HFFFW7LWp9io3vd8BeBbK3zi7vVtiMBNG: 0.00000003
1LmKT6jpszN8UMbbZYeQkZnqGdmTm2VdrV: 0.00000004
1FMaqG2VSvzeSgxaLPbP3mwUdPch6UgivU: 0.000004
13JnZ4mdzUhsSLuYn6HaPzzADUVWQhQS5w: 0.000003
1BMhZFKJ2r1kp3GLNn8WZ6YougYrRfCziE: 0.000004
15puRzRCezrM8PcJppiNGyNdyjBXCfgMtw: 0.000004
19xVTYRoShy1KNPr1EmHHJtCZ4zF8bFwdo: 0.000003
1FfuFv2X8pUxXmxBZXGN27m38FBKET2f4a: 0.000004
1FfT8vQDCo6sA2uwh3mn8EjkyVRgy1ZARc: 0.000004
19pTAoU9EG93PA9hw6CQjhg4iV5GvTUBFu: 0.000003
64 transactions! Overall sum just 0.03297843 BTC!
SIZE 2.333 kB for almost nothing !!
Fee 0.0015
http://blockexplorer.com/b/237507
http://blockexplorer.com/address/1GfV8CBz6rhKAzPRVt4jYiJLdghmvWptfR
A system taken seriously should not allow (or enforce??) such obvious nonsens at all.
May 23, 2013, 08:04:40 AM
Each lawyer will tell you:
All these ARBITRARY and UNFORESEEABLE enforced transaction fees are ILLEGAL.
It cannot be down to miners whim, what at all and even HOW MUCH they want to claim.
A claim of fees must at least clearly be declared before a transaction is definitely mandated by users.
Otherwise there is no agreement.
No agreement, no fee.
And no other chicanry like delays or denial of service (seems also applied - illegally).
Miners have the right to choose whom they provide service to or not.All these ARBITRARY and UNFORESEEABLE enforced transaction fees are ILLEGAL.
It cannot be down to miners whim, what at all and even HOW MUCH they want to claim.
A claim of fees must at least clearly be declared before a transaction is definitely mandated by users.
Otherwise there is no agreement.
No agreement, no fee.
And no other chicanry like delays or denial of service (seems also applied - illegally).
Start a new topic. This is not the right place.
The law could not be closer related to what you call/ed "No Forced TX fee", "Freedom", "Getting robbed by miners".
May 23, 2013, 03:08:44 AM
Each lawyer will tell you:
All these ARBITRARY and UNFORESEEABLE enforced transaction fees are ILLEGAL.
It cannot be down to miners whim, what at all and even HOW MUCH they want to claim.
A claim of fees must at least clearly be declared before a transaction is definitely mandated by users.
Otherwise there is no agreement.
No agreement, no fee.
And no other chicanry like delays or denial of service (seems also applied - illegally).
Miners have the right to choose whom they provide service to or not.All these ARBITRARY and UNFORESEEABLE enforced transaction fees are ILLEGAL.
It cannot be down to miners whim, what at all and even HOW MUCH they want to claim.
A claim of fees must at least clearly be declared before a transaction is definitely mandated by users.
Otherwise there is no agreement.
No agreement, no fee.
And no other chicanry like delays or denial of service (seems also applied - illegally).
Start a new topic. This is not the right place.
May 22, 2013, 07:21:15 PM
Each lawyer will tell you:
All these ARBITRARY and UNFORESEEABLE enforced transaction fees are ILLEGAL.
It cannot be down to miners whim, what at all and even HOW MUCH they want to claim.
A claim of fees must at least clearly be declared before a transaction is definitely mandated by users.
Otherwise there is no agreement.
No agreement, no fee.
And no other chicanry like delays or denial of service (seems also applied - illegally).
Miners have the right to choose whom they provide service to or not. All these ARBITRARY and UNFORESEEABLE enforced transaction fees are ILLEGAL.
It cannot be down to miners whim, what at all and even HOW MUCH they want to claim.
A claim of fees must at least clearly be declared before a transaction is definitely mandated by users.
Otherwise there is no agreement.
No agreement, no fee.
And no other chicanry like delays or denial of service (seems also applied - illegally).
May 22, 2013, 05:38:06 PM
Each lawyer will tell you:
All these ARBITRARY and UNFORESEEABLE enforced transaction fees are ILLEGAL.
It cannot be down to miners whim, what at all and even HOW MUCH they want to claim.
A claim of fees must at least clearly be declared before a transaction is definitely mandated by users.
Otherwise there is no agreement.
No agreement, no fee.
And no other chicanry like delays or denial of service (seems also applied - illegally).
All these ARBITRARY and UNFORESEEABLE enforced transaction fees are ILLEGAL.
It cannot be down to miners whim, what at all and even HOW MUCH they want to claim.
A claim of fees must at least clearly be declared before a transaction is definitely mandated by users.
Otherwise there is no agreement.
No agreement, no fee.
And no other chicanry like delays or denial of service (seems also applied - illegally).
Wut ?
Seriously, this topic is not related to what you said and this is not a place for such discussion. Please start a new topic and stop derailing this one.
May 22, 2013, 02:48:08 PM
Each lawyer will tell you:
All these ARBITRARY and UNFORESEEABLE enforced transaction fees are ILLEGAL.
It cannot be down to miners whim, what at all and even HOW MUCH they want to claim.
A claim of fees must at least clearly be declared before a transaction is definitely mandated by users.
Otherwise there is no agreement.
No agreement, no fee.
And no other chicanry like delays or denial of service (seems also applied - illegally).
All these ARBITRARY and UNFORESEEABLE enforced transaction fees are ILLEGAL.
It cannot be down to miners whim, what at all and even HOW MUCH they want to claim.
A claim of fees must at least clearly be declared before a transaction is definitely mandated by users.
Otherwise there is no agreement.
No agreement, no fee.
And no other chicanry like delays or denial of service (seems also applied - illegally).
May 16, 2013, 05:51:14 AM
Would be much easier to everyone, if anybody will provide compiled binaries for Windows...
Well that surely won't be me. I don't use "legacy technologies from twentieth century" as somebody stated on this forums.
May 16, 2013, 05:48:24 AM
Would be much easier to everyone, if anybody will provide compiled binaries for Windows...
May 16, 2013, 03:04:45 AM
Binaries anyone!?
Building a binary from source isn't some magic limited to developers.
May 14, 2013, 04:05:01 AM
Binaries anyone!?
March 24, 2013, 12:22:02 PM
2013-03-24 Update:
NFTF - version 0.8.0, 0.8.1 released.
Fresh tags - nftf-v0.8.0, nftf-v0.8.1 are avaiable for download.
https://github.com/ShadowOfHarbringer/bitcoin-nftf/tags
MASTER branch was also updated to latest Bitcoin version:
https://github.com/ShadowOfHarbringer/bitcoin-nftf
2013-03-24 WARNING !!
PLEASE NOTE THAT UNTIL MAX BLOCK SIZE PROBLEM HAS BEEN SOLVED BY DEVELOPERS, SOME FREE (WITHOUT FEE) TRANSACTIONS CREATED BY THIS FORK MAY CONFIRM VERY SLOWLY OR NEVER.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED, THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
NFTF - version 0.8.0, 0.8.1 released.
Fresh tags - nftf-v0.8.0, nftf-v0.8.1 are avaiable for download.
https://github.com/ShadowOfHarbringer/bitcoin-nftf/tags
MASTER branch was also updated to latest Bitcoin version:
https://github.com/ShadowOfHarbringer/bitcoin-nftf
2013-03-24 WARNING !!
PLEASE NOTE THAT UNTIL MAX BLOCK SIZE PROBLEM HAS BEEN SOLVED BY DEVELOPERS, SOME FREE (WITHOUT FEE) TRANSACTIONS CREATED BY THIS FORK MAY CONFIRM VERY SLOWLY OR NEVER.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED, THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
March 21, 2013, 12:53:29 AM
I dont mind paying a fee. I just dont want to be paying 300% of the input of my transaction 
A fee absolutely proportionate to the input of my transaction is what I'm aiming for. Running a BTC Faucet like site I tend to have large transactions to many addresses for very small amounts. I've been experimenting trying to get the lowest fees. But I still cant seem to beat just sending them in bulk to about 2000 addresses at a time. Thou sending to 232-314 Addresses seems to be a bit of a sweet spot in terms of transaction size.
A fee absolutely proportionate to the input of my transaction is what I'm aiming for. Running a BTC Faucet like site I tend to have large transactions to many addresses for very small amounts. I've been experimenting trying to get the lowest fees. But I still cant seem to beat just sending them in bulk to about 2000 addresses at a time. Thou sending to 232-314 Addresses seems to be a bit of a sweet spot in terms of transaction size. March 20, 2013, 04:33:07 AM
block limit for 0.7.2 or ?
I was talking about the fixed 1MB block size.
Once we start getting close to it, low priority transactions (low amounts, multiple small outputs etc) without any fee may never confirm.
March 20, 2013, 02:47:33 AM
block limit for 0.7.2 or ?
Block limit for prior to 0.8/0.8.1... The issue with 0.7.2 is a bit more archane.
March 20, 2013, 02:06:53 AM
block limit for 0.7.2 or ?
March 19, 2013, 04:41:10 AM
dammit! Now 0.8.1 comes out and its a hard fork from 0.7.2 and lower! So this wont even work anymore.
Can you make a 0.8.x No Forced TX Fork ? Running a BitCoin Faucet/PTC site I desperately need this.
Can you make a 0.8.x No Forced TX Fork ? Running a BitCoin Faucet/PTC site I desperately need this.
I will make a fork, however be wary that now that we may be reaching block limit soon, so the transactions you make may never confirm.
This fork is kind of dangerous until the block size issue is not solved.
March 19, 2013, 12:53:49 AM
dammit! Now 0.8.1 comes out and its a hard fork from 0.7.2 and lower! So this wont even work anymore.
Can you make a 0.8.x No Forced TX Fork ? Running a BitCoin Faucet/PTC site I desperately need this.
Can you make a 0.8.x No Forced TX Fork ? Running a BitCoin Faucet/PTC site I desperately need this.
Jump to: