Send bitcoin gold from paper wallet to paper wallet
12 comments
Raj samani bitcoin miner
They're just a proxy. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Watch is the private key, that only can use to spend bitcoins. The wiki page on raw transactions doesn't yet document this, but there's an optional array of addresses you bitcoin add to the end: How long do you think address will take to make that change?
Related communities Sorted roughly by decreasing popularity. We can also get a similar list of TXIDs from the mempool, using getrawmempool which enables us to see 0 confirmation transactions, which is very helpful for instant feedback purposes when displaying a list of deposits a customer has made, for example. It's a client intended for end-user use. Can't you just check the bitcoin chain?
Now joint CEO of Wildbunny, he is able to give himself hiccups simply by coughing. I also wonder if it bitcoin be useful to anything for it to be bitcoin like IsMIne instead of a boolean. Watch wallet has many addresses.
I fully agree that having address mixed wallet, with both spendable keys and other only addresses, leads to a more complex and potentially confusing interface. Nevermind, I think I address it. I generated watch bitcoin wallet address. It doesn't only anything useful. It doesn't really make sense for address-watching to add outputs to the wallet in the first place, since the outputs aren't really related beyond the receive notification.
Does it really make sense to include a spendability boolean in each COutput? Your code doesn't seem to actually use it anywhere. The last parameter of COutput doesn't seem to be useful in its current form because it is ascertained too late to be useful. What plans did you have for it? Perhaps it would be more useful as the tri-state enum instead of boolean?
This allowed me to filter the watchonly outputs from the coincontrol selection dialog. Can you think of a better way? My testing indicates that Coin Control and Watch Only operate fine independently, but the combination has issues. That succeeded in excluding the unspendable coins from the selection dialog, Coin Control appears to calculate the tx size and fee correctly, but then things go wrong after you Send.
One transaction I attempted had 67 inputs and was just under 10KB qualifying for free with a sufficiently high priority. After send, the client ended up failing with the "Transaction too large" error, meaning the client thought the transaction was in excess of KB.
Another attempt with a 2KB transaction failed with an insufficient fee as the client thought the actual size was much larger than what Coin Control believed it to be. The way Coin Control is currently structured it is uncertain if it can use watchonly's fSpendable as intended.
I also wonder if it would be useful to anything for it to be tri-state like IsMIne instead of a boolean. It would be a lot safer and less confusing to allow watch-only addresses only if a wallet does not mix with privkey addresses. I have to admit while testing this earlier that the user experience with the current watchonly implementation is very confusing when you have a mixed wallet.
The "fake-encrypted" wallet approach would allow a watch-only wallet to happen safely and easily. I'm not sure if others would like to have the private key addresses for other purposes, but for me, private key addresses are not needed. CC is pretty much done except people need to step through the Test Plan in that ticket. Could you please direct people to participate in that? I fully agree that having a mixed wallet, with both spendable keys and other unspendable addresses, leads to a more complex and potentially confusing interface.
IMO the complication of the current solution would be less if it was more visible to the user through the interface; for example if getinfo and such were to return two balances: This would also fit better into the overview page in the GUI. This is working awesome for me. Thank you sipa and all other people here too. I want to ask, how can we delete a watched only address from being "watched". Can I remove them? Anyone able to share a built windows exe? Trying to build bitcoind in windows without much Make experience is like chewing sand.
WHY would you love to see it merged-- can you please describe exactly how you are using, or are planning on using, this feature?
Could you just run with an always-encrypted wallet instead, and if not, why not? The only feature missing then is to watch addresses that you have no private key for. This could be due to logistic reasons, ex. Or multisig addresses that the user has only one of the keys to, but knows the P2SH address for. I think the "importaddress" idea is solid. But my irk about this implementation is that it combines spendable and non-spendable balances. This is only acceptable for read-only wallets.
My apologies if this comes off as dramatic, but we're having a really hard time explaining how important this is, and I'm kindof at a loss for how to explain how important this pull request is, having tried so hard previously and failing to get attention. I want everybody reading this to take a moment of silence to ponder the tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars USD that have been stolen because of storing private keys on the server.
Bitcoin security is in really bad shape. There's so much theft of Bitcoins these days, in such high amounts, that it makes bank heists look like shoplifting. This is not something the police are going to solve, we have to solve it.
We have to get more serious about security, and providing safer mechanisms for dealing with Bitcoin. That's what this pull request does. What this pull request does is turn bitcoind into a listener node you don't need to trust anymore, and as such, this is the most important addition to bitcoind ever.
It is critically important for hybrid wallets that we don't disclose the private key to the server, ever. Coinpunk completely and utterly depends on it, and if this gets rejected, it endangers a new Bitcoin wallet. In that amount of time, several new hosted wallets will go online that use server-side key management because no alternative exists for them, which will create more honeypots for hackers, which will lead to more major wallet thefts.
There are at least a dozen Bitcoin startups using it in production not just for Coinpunk, for many other things , and I don't want to see them forced to depend on an old unstable version of bitcoind that could lead to serious problems and possibly a blockchain fork involving a huge swath of Bitcoin users, which could cause a crash in the price of Bitcoin, or worse. I will not use a replacement for this that requires the private keys, because it's dangerous and I won't do it.
If there is a way to not disclose private keys and have this same functionality that's through a different mechanism, document it in this thread and I will gladly switch to it. But anything involving private keys is a total deal breaker. All the work is done. We're one merge away, and Bitcoin immediately becomes a more secure, better ecosystem. That merge will give developers safer tools to work with Bitcoin, and will probably save millions of dollars from future theft.
Sure, maybe watch-only probably shouldn't have been setup to mix watch and non-watch addresses, but if you're not using the functionality, so what if it's there? Better to get this out the door given the high real-world demand for it than let the code rot and become unmergable again as things get changed around it. One example of this is the "account" system. It is extremely unintuitive in various ways, does strange things in interaction with labels and the GUI. But we're kind of stuck there.
Everyone wants accounts to work in their preferred way, but doing anything to it breaks backwards compatibility in possibly dangerous ways.
So -- we need to get this the RPC interface, not so much the implementation right the first time. IMHO the only solution that can satisfy everyone is to get rid of wallet functionality in bitcoind split it off, not delete it , and provide an interface for wallet software to connect to.
In principle the wallet functionality is a distraction from the purpose of bitcoind which is to run a validating node for the P2P network. When the wallet functionality is split off interfaces can be gradually moved to whatever they should be. But given people are using this in production and semi-production, that's saying it's got direct real-world uses and maybe the interface is actually working.
Once people's usage strategies settle down a bit, maybe our ideas of what was a perfect RPC interface will turn out to be wrong anyway - I myself can think of times where mixing funds that have full keys and funds that need additional signatures from elsewhere to be spent would be useful. The above Watch Only Wallet now? If you create such wallets offline, private keys are effectively never on the server.
This is the best, proven option you have for now. The only possible implementation of watch-only that has a chance of merging in 0. I know some people who would be willing to write that for a little bounty, but there is no guarantee that it would be accepted into mainline. Rejecting this pull request doesn't prevent that, it causes more problems. Sometimes we can't control how open source software is used. The street finds its own use for things, and the street is using watch-only addresses.
We should recognize that this is happening and help people solve the most important problem with Bitcoin right now: Getting the RPC interface right I'm using it right now, and I have no changes, it's perfect for what I'm doing anyway , and splitting off the RPC are different goals, and I really don't think we should reject this pull request because of an ongoing purity debate regarding the wallet code in bitcoind.
I agree with you that splitting off is a good thing and I support that, but how does holding back on this pull request right now prevent you from splitting it off later? Let's not let bitcoind fall into disrepair while having this discussion.
Let's make it better right now, and split off the code later. This merge is so simple it could be put in the next release of Bitcoind, but the code splitting probably needs another major version, so it's a good partition to do it this way.
This is significant, because it's a mobile Bitcoin wallet that supports QR that Apple can't ban , which is another major problem we've been having.