bitcoin wallet reviews 2017
Bitcoin introduces an innovative consensus algorithm named Proof-of-Research to let miners do stuck vast variety of useful calculations. I've tried adding it to the target properties at the end but there is no effect. Wallet I understand about mining but a simple and stupid question — Sync I mine part time? Do not enter your percent on a website you arrived at by clicking a link. Try everything else above as well. However, for a variety of reasons, it is still recommended to just send the funds to the other wallet instead of migrating. Notify of new replies to out comment.
latest news on bitcoin in china
OMG - I have the same problem trying to download the Ethereum wallet from https: Guys, this thing is unusable! Staking at a minimum of 16 hours so the stakeable coins are mature. For this reason i stop it and run disk utility and other tools to repair the directory and defragment the disk every 6 hours. And if it is an argument that doesn't hold up, it will be thorn to shreds. And they aren't doing it to double spend or anything, and the non-segwit chain never gets a block or two at most out of sync, so it doesn't allow hardly anyone else to try to use it to do double spends.
bitcoin half a million dollars
Very out See screenshot: Sync over to amd. Percent and Ethereum network are pretty bad, unfortunately we stuck move on to any other platform for now. New merchants wallet welcome to announce their services for Bitcoin, but after those have been announced they are no longer news and should not be re-posted. Because of the technology After adding the --geth the sync process is starting over. Its important to not confuse technology and implementation on it.
is asic bitcoin mining profitable small В»
Bitcoin wallet out of sync stuck at 99 percent
I don't get what you're not seeing, what I'm talking about is simply the expected outcome, not some exotic effect:. As the percentage of people signalling yes grows, the people left over will naturally be the people who are less eager to update And that effect grows much much stronger as time goes on, because the remaining people are less and less likely to be willing to update at all if they haven't already. I don't believe that there is significant resistance against SegWit.
If there is, SegWit probably won't succeed. Are you talking about someone who is fundamentally against SegWit or are you talking about someone who is feigning resistance against it in an effort to play political games?
What I mean is that there might be some uninformed people. But I have yet to see an argument against SegWit that holds up against alternatives. If one doesn't appear, all the other unholdupable views will be picked apart and the people holding them will stand naked and be forced to either withdraw them or be seen as fools and eventually be hated. I'm not exactly against it, but I don't get why the push is so big for it, given that it doesn't really solve any of the "big problems".
The layer two networks are what's needed to actually solve things, and there's a ton of work to do on those before they're anywhere close to being usable. Not to mention that they could still potentially work just fine even without SegWit. If I were running a node I would vote for, because it is a net technical improvement, but I have no complaints to those who do vote against it, and don't think it will actually hurt Bitcoin in the long run if it doesn't pass.
They are explaining already. The thing is that both camps claim that the arguments of the other side don't hold up. I don't see how this is going to change. There aren't two camps. We're all a bunch of people who want to see bitcoin succeed and hence we're forced to use logic. The process of reason breaking down beliefs can sometimes be slow and painful but it will happen.
The blocksize "debate" that raged here last year is proof that this does happen eventually. I don't see it, but I hope I am wrong. I believe that most are already convinced or on their way to. There are probably many reasons why miners haven't adopted SegWit yet: Even Roger ver isn't against SegWit, he's just trying to weasel in 2mb hard fork on the way. I just don't see how you can conclude that there is no way to get SegWit when you agree there shouldn't be any way to not get SegWit and just a month and a half has passed.
By that time, Litecoin will long have segwit activated already and bitcoin is stuck - desasterous for the eco system - "interesting" to see what will happen What you explain above is exactly why i don't believe that miner is fully aware of what he is saying. Or that it at least is more posturing than hard definite promise. It would be different if that miner added "and if that means I will block progress til then so be it".
Also it is worthwhile to consider the possibility of cultural difference between west and east. What could sound like a definite promise in the West could actually be more of a reminder of one possibility in the east. Personally I'm just seeing a rehash of the blocksize debate Since everything was already hashed out before so loudly, clearly and publicly, there is reason to believe the Chinese might even go through the motions faster.
I saw a video from a debate at a Shanghai meetup. They totally framed the thing like it was "the two sides" and "we have to take control of development from core" as if it is not the economic majority that decides already and as if there was another team of bitcoin experts ready to replace core anywhere.
I don't see why the Chinese won't be able to catch up before the end of next year. AntPool will not support SegWit until there is a block size increase included.
So SegWit ain't gonna happen. Being the last one standing in the way gives you a massive amount of bargaining power to get changes that they want through.
Do you really think that the person holding that is just going to give it up? I highly doubt it. The last person standing in the way has only so much more to lose when it is clear that the rest of the network wants to move forward because their bitcoin won't go up in value. There is nothing to be gained. What to they have to lose exactly? I think that you're vastly overestimating how much the miners care about Bitcoin going up in value.
They probably care way more about cashflow on average than speculation. In fact, they have more to obviously lose by not blocking, because they're raking in transaction fees which could very well drop if they pass it. It's not even like a pool would be needed to block it. And that's assuming that the pool participants actually care enough to switch pools over the blocking, which I doubt many do, they're happy as long as they're getting their money.
There is definitely a balance to be struck in terms of block size and transaction fees. I believe miners understand that and that is why they haven't already made their own 2mb hard fork. The transaction fee market that has developed is clearly healthy. No miner will stand to gain from blocking technical improvements when they know more adoption will make up for the slightly added block space.
There's literally no precedent on which to value Bitcoin, it seem unwise for the miners to assume that the price will rise significantly over taking sure thing that there's almost no chance of the transaction fees dropping if they take the status quo.
Remember that miners are fairly risk adverse: They're making big infrastructure investments for fairly stable return. If they wanted high risk they would probably do something else with their money. Neither will BU for that matter.
However the argument that a blocksize increase hard fork is too risky but a radical soft fork with code changes affecting all aspects of the Bitcoin client is safe is dubious. A hard Fork is risky because it's risky to people's wallets. It's risky because splitting the currency into Bitcoin and Bitcoin classic will completely suck for everybody.
Segwit, while it might be technologically a little more risky then other soft forks, doesn't risk splitting the currency in two. Segwit is a risk to peoples wallets too. What happens if segwit contains an unforseen bug or exploit?
At least with a hardfork you have coins on both chains Hard fork is so much more risky than SegWit. Besides, you are placing 'trust' in the capability of a handfull of people in what should be a 'trustless trust' decentralized network. This applies to both Blockstream and BU I think we have reached the status quo of bitcoin, and scaling pressure will result in innovative solutions on top of bitcoin or the rise of an alternative cryptocurrency. Difficult but not impossible, core itself stated that segwit is not needed for off-chain lightning networks.
Even right now a lot of bitcoins change hands off-chain on exchanges. While it's abundantly clear that there are no "catastrophic" bugs that will allow anyone to take anything, there could be bugs that allow someone to memory-attack a node, or logic errors that cause transactions that don't pass validation to slip through. I doubt it, but it's always possible that the tests and reviewers missed something. At that point it comes down to: Fortunately, segwit is a simple change compared to some other soft forks.
There are a lot of code changes, but most of that is massive unit testing. This is the most extensively tested code change in bitcoin's history. If it is such a good idea, hard fork yourself As such, they should HF and push their technical agenda elsewhere so they can attract users on their own merits rather than Satoshi's. Bitcoin can't support a mass of users on the protocol layer.
It's simply too cumbersome for that. Those with the agenda are the ones trying to convince people otherwise. Because we would need blocks of many GBs to offer the same amount of transactions as visa. Just do the math, we're doing about 3. Add all cash payments, MasterCard payments and future machine to machine payments! But the dumb masses incl. Roger Ver are not cabable enough to see these visions and the needed for corresponding protocol changes SegWit to enable these evolutions.
If you believe that and consider Core's roadmap the best solution, then that is all the more reason to fork, since by your own admission you have no use for the current users in the ecosystem and do not believe any competing fork will succeed.
What fear of failure holds you back? And roger has plenty of money for his campaign against common sense, against pragmatism, against bitcoin. I agree Litecoin implementation before bitcoin could be the only factor ti convonce the shortsighted bitcoin SegWit blockers change their minds.
If there was a betting market I would absolutely bet big on it not passing, at least not without considerable concessions to the last holdouts from the dev community. And not for July but for end of SegWit activation deadline. I would definitely bet against SegWit activation, because I am convinced masses are not smart enough to see the benefits of SegWit.
If about two thirds of those miners were to then join together and used a minor little variation of the Bitcoin Core client, There's nothing any nodes v0. That wouldn't be a nice thing to do as miners not in the cartel even if they are using v0.
Thought of that too. It is a possibility but I think this could generate some loud outcries. The BU guys will be all over reddit with accusations. My hope is that we reach 75 percent and start writing segwit transactions into the blockchain, that could be the tipping point for other miners to join because they realise they can't really reverse segwit. I thought there are 2 thresholds 75 percent signalling will allow segwit transactions 95 percent signalling will enforce segwit transactions.
Thank you, I was confused. Hopefully the BU guys will implement it too. But if they announce it in advance, nobody would be caught by surprise wasting their hashes on a chain that isn't signaling SegWit. And they aren't doing it to double spend or anything, and the non-segwit chain never gets a block or two at most out of sync, so it doesn't allow hardly anyone else to try to use it to do double spends.
And even once SegWit activates, you aren't forced to use it. You can keep on using your v0. I guess you're right, but I don't think I'm making any rough guesses here either.
A significant percentage of Pro-core side hasn't been able to get their arses off the couch in 2 years to upgrade their legacy Maybe someone will pump a bit of energy into those guys, we'll see.
F2pool doesn't know how to recompile their code. So basically they're never going to upgrade. And they represent a large enough portion of the network, that no soft forks will ever ever work again. When you first install ethereum wallet it should ask you do you support the fork if yes that downloads ethereum chain if no that downloads ethereum classic chain.
You cant have 2 different chains on 1 computer unless you start changing file names. So if you install a ethereum wallet on one computer and than on another you install ethereum classic you are good to go. I believe you can put the keystore on each i may be wrong if it doesnt work where you have ethereum classic on one chain and ethereum on another. You will have to run a split which can be done pretty easy using myetherwallet and classicetherwallet.
There are tutorials on the web. When i install it does not ask anything just firewall popup for private or public. Do you think is a good idea to still mining on Ethc or move on to Eth? Check your antivirus make sure its not blocking ethereum or geth. Check firewall settings in virus software and allow access. As far as mining all depends on personal preference.
Not sure if newer wallet asks you if you support you could try version 0. Not sure However you may just want to install jaxx.
Write down your pass phrase and not have to install another blockchain. Keep your ether in ethereum wallet and put your classic in jaxx wallet.
I will try Jaxx for Ethc. The problem is that i already have sent Ethc to an Ethc address and i didnt see an option on Jaxx to import the keystore file. I think i must mining directly ti Jaxx address right? You can import your ethereum classic wallet file that you sent your etc to into classicetherwallet website and than send them to your jaxx wallet. I dont believe you can use keystore file in jaxx. Yes mine to jaxx wallet for your etherem classic. Lose that and lose your coins forever.
You can also enter private key into Jaxx wallet if you have it. Here is what I would do. Make a new account in ethereum wallet. Put a new password and save. Send your ethereum to the new account address. ClassicEtherWallet is only served at https: Beware of the phishing scams! From now on send ethereum to your new account in ethereum wallet and send any etc to jaxx address.
Reason I suggest you setup a new account is because you are sending your passcode for your ether account in your browser unless you do offline transaction which may be confusing for some its much easier and safer just setting up a new account in ethereum wallet. I only have Ethc. Problem solved via Jaxx. I'm shocked how fast the coins was transfered: Ty so much for your time mate. I saw that Jaxx is not good to minimg directly on it is not designed to receive mining payouts so i will continue to sens to my old Ethc keystorr and then transfer it to Jaxx.
Than I learned something new too about mining and jaxx. Ill have to do some research, thanks. The wallet must be synchronized without downloading the entire chain. There are big troubles like this. If I stop it and start it it again it continues from that block for a while it's pretty fast, but then it gets stuck again, this time at , I've left it for hours and it didn't proceed on it's own. I have the same issue here, i downloaded the wallet to my desktop and its not syncing since 5 days now.
Try above what zanimran said. Run geth first than open ethereum wallet. Try everything else above as well. And where am i supposed to find this geth. Light option didn't work for me so far. I am using Ethereum Wallet not Mist v 0. Normal sync would take forever, same for the --fast option, now I'm trying the --light but the problem persists: Please expect considerably long times due to chain size. We recommend using http: I am using that wallet and this is sort of an issue and i would like to ask to please look into it.
You xant just really ask every user to dig for an exe file somewhere installed in a compiter and start the command line app just to sync the block chain. I imagine the chain is big but its still something that shouldnt be an issue ans it just should work fine. Can we reopen this issue please? I am experiencing the same thing. It's not a matter of a "long" download time. Terrible user experience it needs to be fixed. Yes I can use another wallet, but this is the official wallet!
People will download this first, and some people don't want to use an online wallet. Agreed phattrent , thanks everybody for the suggestion but please stop recommending using online wallets: On a side note, I finally managed to sync my ethereum wallet. It took a bit less than forever, and I had to hard-close it and restart it 20 times or so, but eventually it worked out.
It gets super slow when it approaches the last few blocks, and for each of them it downloads a lot of "blockchain structure". It also has problems finding peers very often it takes a few minutes just to connect to the network and, even more annoyingly, if you keep it disconnected for a day or two, then it takes AGAIN forever to resync when you start it unlike, e. So, yeah, sorry for the rant, but it sucks. It would really push me to use an online wallet if I were not paranoid.
I am experiencing exactly what tommasog described. I have hard closed it a bunch of times, it is only a couple hundred blocks behind now but when you restart it has to download THOUSANDS of block structures for some reason? Same problem for me I don't know what to do, i've tried everything i can Mist Wallet all versions. Ethereum wallet all versions. And a bunch of different line like: Sure, it's not the quickest in the world, but how is the world supposed to embrace this if it's this difficult to get anything in or out?
I got sick of the wallet app stalling, so i wrote a quick batch file to auto launch the geth command upon crashing too. It seems to swell up to about 1. At least I'm slowly making progress. Yes guys please ethereum is amazing dont let the users suck with it and ask them to manually start some random thirdparty processes. Simple because most users dont know how to do that. Neither they bother to figure out if theres an issue.
They just use an online wallet that is less secure. In case someone that has something to do with Ethereum reads this.
The Wallet should have a "Pro" and "Light" mode. The Pro mode would use the full block chain. The "Light" mode would use light mode of Geth. This would increase adoption for non-tech people checking out ethereum. And anyone else that doesn't want 20Gig on the hard drive hidden in the AppData directory.
Guys, this thing is unusable! Sorry for the rant, but I disconnected my PC for 24 hours, and after that I cannot sync anymore, even if I let it download overnight it's so slow that it doesn't catch up with the blocks! I am new in Ethereum and I have tried to install the default wallet, recommended with a huge button in ethereum. Any easy step-to-step solution? Win10 64 bits I have never installed ethereum wallet, only bitcoin core.
Head up a few posts and do what TuitionCoin or myself suggested. If you need help in the DOS command prompt area sing out. I'll be home later today and can whip up a quick guided tour of the cmd. Thank you for your help, but that's impossible! I have tried your solution and tuitionCoin's solution and they don't work, with many problems and i am software engineer I don't want to imagine someone non-tech.
The good and definitive solution is to fix "Ethereum wallet. I give it up. Ethereum doesn't seem a serious project. Use the "--light" setting of gether This is deprecated "--syncmode light" setting of geth Use this instead. Never start the wallet with the exe. Always use the bat file to start. If you use the exe the wallet starts geth with crappy settings. TuitionCoin how do you expect people to use this wallet, if they can't open it as a normal program? Most people are not Tech Freaks and can't comprehend what you guys write here.
So we are ending up with less full Nodes, which is of course bad for the decentralized idea behind ETH. Please fix your mist wallet. I don't expect people to use the mist wallet. However, on opening, it now says 'failed to retrieve current release' and 'no suitable peers available'. If I then open up mist, it just says 'started swarm', but doesn't ever progress from this Mist has a new release with lots of improvements.
See installs near bottom of this link. I made a change to the. Replace the "--light" flag with "--syncmode light". I'm not sure if I'm on the write thread if not please advise but I do have a problem: Syncing is doing apparently fine, wallet downloaded more than 3.
Is that wrong, did anyone have an issue like that, and should I do something about it? I have a really old laptop and can only make the mist ethereum wallet work if I launch geth first using syncmode light. If you start mist without first launching Geth, the ethereum wallet will launch its own version of Geth that downloads the full blockchain which is over 20g and is tough for many laptops to handle.
Each time you want to open up mist First start geth --syncmode light --cache Only after geth is running launch the ethereum wallet.
Your solution and concise direction was exactly what I needed to get my wallet to sync properly. And I'm on a decent rig! I'm also finally trying Ethereum out for the first time with installing official Wallet and trying to sync for over a week and never finishing the last 2,, blocks, and wondering "Vitalik, what is this crap?
This is a good post explaining that it's pretty much impossible to sync the full blockchain at this point very concerning. TuitionCoin 's solution is your best bet.
I found that instead of doing the whole batch file thing, you can pass commands to the node geth from the wallet, and instead just edited the Ethereum Wallet. Any assistance would be appreciated. Where would I locate the Parity. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 19, , at 7: I recommend one of the following: