afartinglog 2017-01-10 09:45:33
im trying to send the entirety of my electrum wallet to my mycelium wallet
afartinglog 2017-01-10 09:45:47
at this point i've never sent any btc to anywhere, just collected
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:46:04
afartinglog: collected in what amount-per-payment?
afartinglog 2017-01-10 09:46:53
multiple ~.001 transactions for the last few months
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:47:05
well, that's why
afartinglog 2017-01-10 09:47:13
i'm now paying fees on all those transactions?
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:47:15
yep
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:47:20
or rather, on combining them
afartinglog 2017-01-10 09:49:23
no wonder most people consider bitcoin worthless
belcher 2017-01-10 09:50:02
maybe its not worthless but you dont know how to use it properly
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:50:06
he left
belcher 2017-01-10 09:50:17
ah (i have joins/parts disabled)
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:50:19
but it's interesting
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:50:26
we always think the sender pays the fee
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:50:31
but in reality, it really is the recipient
abpa 2017-01-10 09:50:33
Electrum is a bit aggressive with fees on the low end
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:50:35
just deferred
belcher 2017-01-10 09:50:47
yes, both in a sense pay the fees
belcher 2017-01-10 09:50:58
in that situation you really want to set a very low fee rate and broadcast your tx sunday night
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:51:05
I wonder if wallets ought to set aside expected fees
arubi 2017-01-10 09:51:22
that's a good idea actually
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:51:47
problem is dynamic fees mean your balance will be in somewhat of a flux
belcher 2017-01-10 09:52:11
also your balance depends on how much you feel like waiting for a confirmation :p
arubi 2017-01-10 09:52:26
well I guess you're more interested in how much are you able to send in one go
Cusipzzz 2017-01-10 09:53:02
you can send it for free - it just won't be received...
abpa 2017-01-10 09:53:15
There should be some discount for sending all in one transaction
Cusipzzz 2017-01-10 09:53:32
size matters
arubi 2017-01-10 09:53:33
you could probably try to combine two worthless inputs into one for free, and do that repeatedly at slow hours
arubi 2017-01-10 09:53:51
for free\almost free, until you have something that you can use
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:54:00
abpa: miners can't see if you're doing that, even if they wanted to
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:54:15
arubi: pointless
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:54:25
no fee = never now
abpa 2017-01-10 09:54:29
I mean just the reduced overhead of spending multiple inputs instead of making multiple transactions for each
arubi 2017-01-10 09:54:57
luke-jr, sure, not good for when you wanna send "now", but maybe as some clean up habit once in a while
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:55:14
arubi: no, without a fee it will NEVER get mined
abpa 2017-01-10 09:55:20
Zero-Fee might work if you have someone you are sending to re-spend your output
belcher 2017-01-10 09:55:33
arubi thats what i meant earlier with put a low feerate and broadcast sunday night, which is the quietest time
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:55:37
abpa: it won't get relayed
abpa 2017-01-10 09:55:56
There are some nodes that relay zero fee transactions, I think it depends on luck
arubi 2017-01-10 09:56:10
luke-jr, yea I'm not disputing that. I had a "some fee" tx that didn't get relayed not too long ago. I did mean low fees like belcher says
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:56:38
I have a bunch of single-satoshi UTXOs that are pointless to spend
abpa 2017-01-10 09:57:06
You could reduce the UTXO set out of altruism
arubi 2017-01-10 09:57:24
hehe, we could fund it out of altruism :)
gmaxwell 2017-01-10 09:57:46
I wonder if petertodd's dust be gone sever is still up.
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:57:54
gmaxwell: someone said the other day it isn't.
Cusipzzz 2017-01-10 09:58:19
it's down :/
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:58:42
I should probably just hack up my client to send them without a fee and then coerce Eligius into mining it
gmaxwell 2017-01-10 09:58:47
it's a trivial service.. it's like just netcat into a file.
gmaxwell 2017-01-10 09:59:04
better to coinjoin away dust because it screws up some of the reasons for sending it.
luke-jr 2017-01-10 09:59:35
gmaxwell: it's dust generated back when Eligius always sent a single satoshi to the "tracking" address for its blocks
gmaxwell 2017-01-10 09:59:55
how many of those outputs exist?
luke-jr 2017-01-10 10:00:01
IIRC about 1k
Teroxice 2017-01-10 10:00:12
arubi.. have you seen this RPC? getreceivedbyaddress
gmaxwell 2017-01-10 10:00:27
has that address been used for anything else? you could sign them in a more efficient way if you don't mind releasing the key
luke-jr 2017-01-10 10:00:36
back when I could get no-fee txs confirmed normally, I'd use them up, up to 10k per tx
arubi 2017-01-10 10:00:41
Teroxice, or is getreceived..? I said listreceived.. right?
Teroxice 2017-01-10 10:00:57
yes you did.. but I found this one
luke-jr 2017-01-10 10:01:02
gmaxwell: it shouldn't be, but I'm not sure if it's a safe bet
arubi 2017-01-10 10:01:07
oh there's two of them haha
Teroxice 2017-01-10 10:01:11
just want to know if you ever seen it..
gmaxwell 2017-01-10 10:01:18
luke-jr: yea sure, but so-- nothing but 1 satoshi outputs? so you could leak the key? I have a modification to the signer to make insecure sigs that are unusually small.
luke-jr 2017-01-10 10:01:20
eg, it's possible if wizkid057 accidentally runs older Eligius stuff it might get a block or something
arubi 2017-01-10 10:01:22
never looked Teroxice
Teroxice 2017-01-10 10:01:28
because this one does bring the amount of bitcoins
gmaxwell 2017-01-10 10:01:31
and then you sighash single bug spend and the spending txn are ultra compressable.
gmaxwell 2017-01-10 10:01:45
luke-jr: but its only 1 satoshi that gets paid to it?
arubi 2017-01-10 10:01:54
Teroxice, TIL!
luke-jr 2017-01-10 10:01:58
gmaxwell: unless the generated payouts are missing
luke-jr 2017-01-10 10:02:01
then it's the full block
gmaxwell 2017-01-10 10:02:11
well lets have wizkid not do that.. :P
luke-jr 2017-01-10 10:02:35
wizkid057: ping, you around?
luke-jr 2017-01-10 10:03:30
gmaxwell: btw, does it actually leak the private key, or just produce a signature that will be valid for any UTXO?
gmaxwell 2017-01-10 10:03:50
luke-jr: both, for the smallest size.
luke-jr 2017-01-10 10:03:55
interesting
luke-jr 2017-01-10 10:04:18
hmm, I'd probably have to do surgery on that wallet to delete the privkey from it :x
luke-jr 2017-01-10 10:04:51
FWIW, the address is 18d3HV2bm94UyY4a9DrPfoZ17sXuiDQq2B
gmaxwell 2017-01-10 10:06:17
the trick is: (1) use a R value which has a very small value, where other people know the k and (2) use sighash single so all but one are signing the value 1, and all using the same nonce, so the signature will all be the same
gmaxwell 2017-01-10 10:06:34
the signatures are 10 bytes smaller than normal and all identical, so gzip works great on the resulting txn.
luke-jr 2017-01-10 10:06:51
gmaxwell: is it possible to have the signature valid for any UTXO, but only paying to a known destination?
luke-jr 2017-01-10 10:08:22
looks like 1035 total UTXOs controlled by that key (not all 1 satoshi) totalling 20.63 BTC
gmaxwell 2017-01-10 10:08:43
luke-jr: no.
gmaxwell 2017-01-10 10:08:58
well you could sweep the ones that aren't 1 satoshi first.
arubi 2017-01-10 10:10:34
gmaxwell, so I can win 20.63 btc if I know the DL to 00003B78C... ? :)
luke-jr 2017-01-10 10:11:32
hm, I think this wallet is all uncompressed keys anyway, so I should probably just retire it
spudowiar 2017-01-10 10:18:07
Shameless plug for my Twitter poll but Bitcoin people seem like a good audience for this https://twitter.com/spudowiar/status/818927957364408326
piqure 2017-01-10 10:18:08
^^^ WARNING: any URL may lead directly or indirectly to COIN-STEALING MALWARE! ^^^
spudowiar 2017-01-10 10:18:17
> What is worse for a company to have, every year?
spudowiar 2017-01-10 10:18:36
> 1 of the top 2 CVEs, 5 of the top 10 CVEs, 50 of the top 100 CVEs or 500 of the top 1000 CVEs?
Starduster 2017-01-10 10:20:21
all of the above...
