5 ms·

If I was not 100% confident in performing this transaction (which I would never be) I would send $1 as a test before sending the other $499,999. Is there a tech

If I was not 100% confident in performing this transaction (which I would never be) I would send $1 as a test before sending the other $499,999. Is there a technical reason preventing one doing a test transaction first?

daviddoran 5y ago
Even then, whenever you’re dealing with large amounts there’s risk. E.g., early on in Bitcoin’s development a user lost a lot of Bitcoin by making a small test transfer, not realising that the change (their remaining balance) was sent to a new address in their wallet. But they were running a bootable Linux Distro from a CD and didn’t save the wallet back to a USB or other permanent storage. So they’ll never have access to those keys.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Ah, that sounds like lovely use case for average users with higher than 0 chance of blackouts... Right timing bad design(sensible one) and it is all gone... So in the end regular user probably ends up doing everything on centralized wallets or exchanges and then those are likely to do some off-chain book keeping as that is cheaper... Brining us back to banking...
- ciupicri 5y ago
  How was this possible, for the change to be sent to a new address? If I understand correctly what you're saying is that the account was split in two: one part went to the wanted destination and the rest to an unwanted destination.
  - ripply 5y ago
    Yes, this is how Bitcoin is designed and has worked from the beginning. The problem is his wallet did save the private key for the change address he just didn’t save the wallet, so it was lost - the changed address wasn’t unwanted, it was wanted, it just didn’t get saved. I believe early Bitcoin wallets generated addresses randomly so you couldn’t recover everything from a seed and had to save your wallet.
denni9th 5y ago
The downside to doing this is you have to pay the transaction fee twice, once for the $1 and once for the $499,999. The transaction fee is a fixed amount irregardless of how much is being transferred, so it's definitely better to pay the fee twice than risk losing it all if you are even slightly unsure.
- dTal 5y ago
  >irregardless Friendly heads up - this isn't a word, and also happens to be one of those slip-ups that people will judge you extra hard for. Say either "regardless" or "irrespective".
  - exegete 5y ago
    It most definitely is a word irregardless of your feelings about it https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - dTal 5y ago
      Fine. It's not a [standard, generally accepted] word. Feel free to disregard my advice, though; it's no skin off my nose if you don't want to sound like a "native, educated speaker".
      - xtracto 5y ago
        What do you mean generally accepted word? A word is or is not a word . Dont get butthurt because you were pointed wrong after trying to correct someone.
        dTal 5y ago
        Sheesh. No good deed goes unpunished, eh? From the link: >We label irregardless as “nonstandard” rather than “slang.” When a word is nonstandard it means it is “not conforming in pronunciation, grammatical construction, idiom, or word choice to the usage generally characteristic of educated native speakers of a language.” Irregardless is a long way from winning general acceptance as a standard English word. For that reason, it is best to use regardless instead. Like I said - I really don't care what you do. I'm just trying to be helpful. Use "irregardless" and people will judge you. If you want to die on that hill, be my guest.

daviddoran 5y ago

Even then, whenever you’re dealing with large amounts there’s risk. E.g., early on in Bitcoin’s development a user lost a lot of Bitcoin by making a small test transfer, not realising that the change (their remaining balance) was sent to a new address in their wallet. But they were running a bootable Linux Distro from a CD and didn’t save the wallet back to a USB or other permanent storage. So they’ll never have access to those keys.

Ekaros 5y ago
Ah, that sounds like lovely use case for average users with higher than 0 chance of blackouts... Right timing bad design(sensible one) and it is all gone... So in the end regular user probably ends up doing everything on centralized wallets or exchanges and then those are likely to do some off-chain book keeping as that is cheaper... Brining us back to banking...
ciupicri 5y ago
How was this possible, for the change to be sent to a new address? If I understand correctly what you're saying is that the account was split in two: one part went to the wanted destination and the rest to an unwanted destination.
- ripply 5y ago
  Yes, this is how Bitcoin is designed and has worked from the beginning. The problem is his wallet did save the private key for the change address he just didn’t save the wallet, so it was lost - the changed address wasn’t unwanted, it was wanted, it just didn’t get saved. I believe early Bitcoin wallets generated addresses randomly so you couldn’t recover everything from a seed and had to save your wallet.

denni9th 5y ago

The downside to doing this is you have to pay the transaction fee twice, once for the $1 and once for the $499,999. The transaction fee is a fixed amount irregardless of how much is being transferred, so it's definitely better to pay the fee twice than risk losing it all if you are even slightly unsure.

dTal 5y ago
>irregardless Friendly heads up - this isn't a word, and also happens to be one of those slip-ups that people will judge you extra hard for. Say either "regardless" or "irrespective".
- exegete 5y ago
  It most definitely is a word irregardless of your feelings about it https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dTal 5y ago
    Fine. It's not a [standard, generally accepted] word. Feel free to disregard my advice, though; it's no skin off my nose if you don't want to sound like a "native, educated speaker".
    - xtracto 5y ago
      What do you mean generally accepted word? A word is or is not a word . Dont get butthurt because you were pointed wrong after trying to correct someone.
      - dTal 5y ago
        Sheesh. No good deed goes unpunished, eh? From the link: >We label irregardless as “nonstandard” rather than “slang.” When a word is nonstandard it means it is “not conforming in pronunciation, grammatical construction, idiom, or word choice to the usage generally characteristic of educated native speakers of a language.” Irregardless is a long way from winning general acceptance as a standard English word. For that reason, it is best to use regardless instead. Like I said - I really don't care what you do. I'm just trying to be helpful. Use "irregardless" and people will judge you. If you want to die on that hill, be my guest.