Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 46 results by NapHappy
Re: [Apr 2024] Fees are HIGH, wait for opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs
The days after the halving tomorrow and before the difficulty adjustment in about 5 days will be brutal for fees with the Runes added in.
Quote from: NapHappy
"Brutal" is a subjective term, I just see things getting even worse for a while due to the above.
Still, I'll bet that the average fees for the 2 weeks post halving will be 50% higher than the average fees for the 2 weeks pre-halving.
I think I should have stood my ground with "brutal".
Re: [Mar 2024] Fees are lower, wait for opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs
My logic is that
1. We will see a drop in the hash rate once the halving occurs due to mining being unprofitable for inefficient miners, this will lead to longer block times until the difficulty is adjusted 4 days later. Longer block times means people paying higher fees to get into the next block.
Miners must have already calculated in the drop in block reward. Some of them may turn off their older hardware at that point, but I don't expect a significant impact. Besides, it's less than 50% they're "losing". Earlier drops in Bitcoin price (around 80%) had a much larger effect on their earnings. Blocks will be fine.1. We will see a drop in the hash rate once the halving occurs due to mining being unprofitable for inefficient miners, this will lead to longer block times until the difficulty is adjusted 4 days later. Longer block times means people paying higher fees to get into the next block.
I guess also the higher fees will mean less miners will turn off after the halving.
Still, I'll bet that the average fees for the 2 weeks post halving will be 50% higher than the average fees for the 2 weeks pre-halving.
Re: [Mar 2024] Fees are lower, wait for opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs
⭐ Merited by Pmalek (2)
The days after the halving tomorrow and before the difficulty adjustment in about 5 days will be brutal for fees with the Runes added in. It will likely take some weeks after the difficulty adjustment for fees to settle out to a new normal.
Why?
First, the difficulty has nothing to do with the amount of spam those guys throw at the chain.
If you think that there will be a massive block slowdown that won't happen in 5 days either, because 2/3 of the period has passed, so even if we are going to see something like 20% down instantly it will only last 6 days out of which 4 are doing the weekend.
Costly, a big clog, maybe, but in no way brutal.
Plus I'm not even convinced about that 20%, we just had 4% up previously, and even right now we're 2% in the green with faster blocks, as I said in the speculation topic, my bet is on at max 10% during the first adjustment.
My logic is that
1. We will see a drop in the hash rate once the halving occurs due to mining being unprofitable for inefficient miners, this will lead to longer block times until the difficulty is adjusted 4 days later. Longer block times means people paying higher fees to get into the next block.
2. At the same time, Runes come into play, also driving up the fees.
3. We are already in a high fee environment, this is just adding to it.
"Brutal" is a subjective term, I just see things getting even worse for a while due to the above.
I haven't been around long enough to understand the nuances of what will drive the difficulty up or down, but if BTC stays above $60k I agree that the difficulty drop won't be drastic.
Re: [Mar 2024] Fees are lower, wait for opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs
This is just mind-blowing:
The monkey boys have calmed down a bit and the transaction fees are more than twice as cheap right now. But I am not optimistic for the near future. The halving is coming and with it a new monkey protocol on the day of the halving. Bananas will again raise the fees to make Bitcoin unusable for normal people. We will have to wait a long time I am afraid for the perfect opportunities to carry out proper consolidations. The days after the halving tomorrow and before the difficulty adjustment in about 5 days will be brutal for fees with the Runes added in. It will likely take some weeks after the difficulty adjustment for fees to settle out to a new normal.
Re: [Feb 2024] Fees are lower, wait for opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs
...
Quote
1. In the first post off this thread it says this "If you have many different inputs, I suggest to consolidate them in multiple steps. Don't create a 100,000 bytes transaction with 500 inputs, but instead create many transactions with 20-ish inputs." Is this still a recommended plan?
It doesn't need to be 20, I'd probably go up to 50 now. It's not a hard limit.Why not all at once? Is doing smaller chunks more likely to be accepted? or is it just not having all your eggs in one basket?
Re: [Mar 2024] Fees are lower, wait for opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs
If you have to consolidate small inputs at higher fees, at least omit the inputs that aren't worth the fee. This transaction for instance paid 25.1 sat/vbyte for 698 multisig inputs. That's about 3250 sat per input. It includes inputs as low as 0.00001308 and 0.00001498 BTC, which at this fee adds a negative value to the transaction. They're literally burning money to remove money from their wallet.
Looking at my situation, I have a bunch of UTXOs that are .0004 BTC and up, so my fears of everything turning to dust are not as dire as I thought. I am thinking of holding out waiting for something like a fee rate of 6 sats and just get it done. There are 3 UTXOs that are below .0004, one is .00008, I'll make sure I don't burn it.
Re: [Mar 2024] Fees are lower, wait for opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs
I think the correct strategy is to always spend from the UTXO with the highest amount of bitcoin. Is there is a flaw in this strategy?
Well, if you have many UTXO and also spend a lot, sooner or later you can easily end up with small inputs off this, so you still have to consolidate now ant then.
The strategy is not very bad, but not the best either. However, I feel that the problem of small inputs is coming more from how you earn/get to your custody those UTXO (so you may not be in real danger).
Since I have - now and then - to convert Bitcoin into fiat (sadly), one strategy I take is that when I have to spend I pick some 1-2 UTXO with the sum not that far from the amount I need, and the change I send to the centralized wallet that I use to convert to fiat (not nice, but meh).
Yeah, I plan on consolidating once fees are lower. Just thinking about ways to reduce the amount of potential dust.
Re: [Mar 2024] Fees are lower, wait for opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs
While I am waiting for lower fees, I want to prevent having small UTXOs in the future.
I think the correct strategy is to always spend from the UTXO with the highest amount of bitcoin. Is there is a flaw in this strategy?
All my BTC is KYC.
I don't engage in any illegal activity.
I don't have enough BTC to worry about people knowing my balance (well below 1 BTC).
I think the correct strategy is to always spend from the UTXO with the highest amount of bitcoin. Is there is a flaw in this strategy?
All my BTC is KYC.
I don't engage in any illegal activity.
I don't have enough BTC to worry about people knowing my balance (well below 1 BTC).
I still have https://smokinghopium.io running. It now has a graph to show the monthly net mining results.
I have also included the average transaction fees received to select from.
This is the most complete calculator you can get without using a crystal ball.
https://smokinghopium.io
I have also included the average transaction fees received to select from.
This is the most complete calculator you can get without using a crystal ball.
https://smokinghopium.io
Is there any logic to what was happening?
I don't see much logic in such a transaction, except maybe someone's software is malfunctioning. It wouldn't be the first time. Or maybe it's just a simple human error...
Nor I, but along with the other weird transactions at that address, it seems intentional.
The plot thickens...
The wallet seems to be sending dust to itself lately, several payments of - 0.00000600 BTC.
https://mempool.space/tx/72f8d1789c8c8662907679a96dcfdbe640155502ec4b95ac3c5feeaa7a9e8432
Maybe this is something to do with ordinals?
The wallet seems to be sending dust to itself lately, several payments of - 0.00000600 BTC.
https://mempool.space/tx/72f8d1789c8c8662907679a96dcfdbe640155502ec4b95ac3c5feeaa7a9e8432
Maybe this is something to do with ordinals?
I was browsing recent transactions and came across this one from a few hours ago. It caught my eye since it was 82,273 sat/vB, i.e., $24,663 
The high rate was not the only thing, it seemed to have had the fee bumped 6 times in about 5 minutes, it had started at about a 24,181 sat/vB, quite a bit lower but still much higher than necessary.
But it gets weirder, it is sending about .91 bitcoin from 2 addresses and sending to the SAME addresses.
Is there any logic to what was happening?
https://mempool.space/tx/55656790f55216e6a6d8b03d041499c24de3105473c59c67e5dafe0362d0e9e9
The high rate was not the only thing, it seemed to have had the fee bumped 6 times in about 5 minutes, it had started at about a 24,181 sat/vB, quite a bit lower but still much higher than necessary.
But it gets weirder, it is sending about .91 bitcoin from 2 addresses and sending to the SAME addresses.
Is there any logic to what was happening?
https://mempool.space/tx/55656790f55216e6a6d8b03d041499c24de3105473c59c67e5dafe0362d0e9e9
Re: [Feb 2024] Fees are lower, wait for opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs
I started mining in 2021 and had my pool send me BTC as .0005 (or lower) as I was very skeptical of a pool "rugging" me.
When I have made payments I did so with my Trezor, and it was using its own algorithm to determine what UTXOs to spend, I didn't understand UTXOs, so I just let Trezor do its thing.
So in November when I saw the fees had spiked I had the pool pay me when my balance hits .02 BTC.
Then I read this article about higher fees turning small UTXOs into dust. - https://jrjr.meme/to-dust-you-shall-return/#84f286e7-c306-4bf7-bcea-aa7a53393e1f-link
So now I am understanding UTXO management quite a bit too late.
I have over 100 Segwit UTXOs under .001 BTC.
I am trying to figure out the most efficient strategy to consolidate my UTXOs. I realize that no one has a crystal ball regarding fees, so let's assume the fees stay where they are now. I have questions:
1. In the first post off this thread it says this "If you have many different inputs, I suggest to consolidate them in multiple steps. Don't create a 100,000 bytes transaction with 500 inputs, but instead create many transactions with 20-ish inputs." Is this still a recommended plan? It seems that each individual consolidation has a bit of overhead which could be saved by having only 1 consolidation, and then also that the multiple resulting UTXOs will also be smaller perhaps ending up as dust themselves.
2. Is there a way in Trezor to see the size of each UTXO? Without that info, I have no idea whether a UTXO is dust at this price. I have exported the trezor info into a csv, but that doesn't give me the size of the UTXO.
3. If I do a consolidation with a very low fee hoping it happens to get picked up, and it doesn't complete, what will happen to it? How long until I can try again?
When I have made payments I did so with my Trezor, and it was using its own algorithm to determine what UTXOs to spend, I didn't understand UTXOs, so I just let Trezor do its thing.
So in November when I saw the fees had spiked I had the pool pay me when my balance hits .02 BTC.
Then I read this article about higher fees turning small UTXOs into dust. - https://jrjr.meme/to-dust-you-shall-return/#84f286e7-c306-4bf7-bcea-aa7a53393e1f-link
So now I am understanding UTXO management quite a bit too late.
I have over 100 Segwit UTXOs under .001 BTC.
I am trying to figure out the most efficient strategy to consolidate my UTXOs. I realize that no one has a crystal ball regarding fees, so let's assume the fees stay where they are now. I have questions:
1. In the first post off this thread it says this "If you have many different inputs, I suggest to consolidate them in multiple steps. Don't create a 100,000 bytes transaction with 500 inputs, but instead create many transactions with 20-ish inputs." Is this still a recommended plan? It seems that each individual consolidation has a bit of overhead which could be saved by having only 1 consolidation, and then also that the multiple resulting UTXOs will also be smaller perhaps ending up as dust themselves.
2. Is there a way in Trezor to see the size of each UTXO? Without that info, I have no idea whether a UTXO is dust at this price. I have exported the trezor info into a csv, but that doesn't give me the size of the UTXO.
3. If I do a consolidation with a very low fee hoping it happens to get picked up, and it doesn't complete, what will happen to it? How long until I can try again?
My description was a little unclear as I was calmly panicking.
Ok, that was disappointing, I thought you just discovered a new bug.
Quote
I am 95% sure that is the correct situation, but I have a nagging question about why I can not see that "Change Address" from within the Trezor, even if I do an export to a CSV.
Well, it's probably because they want to keep the GUI as clean and neat as possible, and that makes sense, it's like checking your hard drive space, it won't bother you with all the details, it would just sum everything up and tell you that you got x filled and y empty, if you need more details -- you going to have to dig further.
If you still want to see your change addresses you are going to need to use another wallet or use coin control which is easier, just do as if you were going to send some BTC, and you get that setting icon that allows you to use coin control, that would display a breakdown of your balance, this address holds x BTC and that address holds y BTC, it's been a while since I used Trezor but ya I am sure that would work.
And there it was in the coin control view. Whew! Thanks!
What you describe here is "change address", and that would only affect the overall balance that Trezor displays, an example of that would be your Trezor showing balance of 1 BTC, and then when you copy your current address to one of the blockchain explorers it would show 0.6BTC, that missing 0.4BTC belongs to a change address that was created when you made a transfer from your wallet at some point in the past.
OP's problem if I understand it correctly isn't related to that, he mentioned a missing output, so this means, the balance on the explorer is larger than what shows on his Trezor.
I think it may be the "change address" you mention. The balance on the explorer is lower than what is shown on my trezor. My description was a little unclear as I was calmly panicking.
This question posted on the Trezor forum is similar to what I am seeing and the response from Trezor leads to a post about Change Addresses.
https://forum.trezor.io/t/bitcoin-change-being-send-to-a-new-address/14262
I am 95% sure that is the correct situation, but I have a nagging question about why I can not see that "Change Address" from within the Trezor, even if I do an export to a CSV.
I understand the problem you are trying to explain.
Because I also use Trezor.
Later, I did a lot of research and learned.
The problem is.
If the btc that appears in the Trezor main balance does not actually appear in the previously sent btc address.
When you transfer BTC, the Trezor system sends the previously sent BTC to the place you sent it at the time of transfer.
But it creates a new BTC address and sends the remaining balance to it.
You see it in your Trezor balance.
When you buy previous BTC, you cannot see it because the remaining BTC is sent to the new BTC address.
Your BTC do not disappear. Again, the balance is in Trezor, but at the new BTC address where the system creates an automatic fork.
This sounds like it may be the problem...Is there a place where I can read more about this? Is it a known Trezor oddityBecause I also use Trezor.
Later, I did a lot of research and learned.
The problem is.
If the btc that appears in the Trezor main balance does not actually appear in the previously sent btc address.
When you transfer BTC, the Trezor system sends the previously sent BTC to the place you sent it at the time of transfer.
But it creates a new BTC address and sends the remaining balance to it.
You see it in your Trezor balance.
When you buy previous BTC, you cannot see it because the remaining BTC is sent to the new BTC address.
Your BTC do not disappear. Again, the balance is in Trezor, but at the new BTC address where the system creates an automatic fork.
What circumstances would make my Trezor BTC Balance not match the balance that is on blockchain.com for my Bitcoin address?
Everything is the same between the two except Blockchain.com shows one additional output last year.
Why would Trezor not have the same outputs?
this may help you https://trezor.io/learn/a/balances-mismatchEverything is the same between the two except Blockchain.com shows one additional output last year.
Why would Trezor not have the same outputs?
have you made any transactions earlier before checking the balance?
That link is for the Desktop and Suite Lite applications not matching. But I may end up using the link at the bottom.
Thanks for responding!
What circumstances would make my Trezor BTC Balance not match the balance that is on blockchain.com for my Bitcoin address?
Everything is the same between the two except Blockchain.com shows one additional output last year.
Why would Trezor not have the same outputs?
Everything is the same between the two except Blockchain.com shows one additional output last year.
Why would Trezor not have the same outputs?
⭐ Merited by mikeywith (2)
Yeah, servicing debt would be a killer.
I don't know how long farms would manage 20k BTC if the difficulty keeps rising at this incredible pace. I imagine it may drop a bit, but then the 140TH machines start entering the market.
I wonder how much illegal mining is happening in China. The hash rate recovery was mind boggling. People said it would take at least a year to recover!
I don't know how long farms would manage 20k BTC if the difficulty keeps rising at this incredible pace. I imagine it may drop a bit, but then the 140TH machines start entering the market.
I wonder how much illegal mining is happening in China. The hash rate recovery was mind boggling. People said it would take at least a year to recover!