Den måndag 17 oktober 2016 kl. 12:47:12 UTC+2 skrev Wei Hsu:
>
> True, sending one by one will cost more in fees. More importantly for me,
> it will take a lot more time to send them one by one.
>
> Limiting the number of outputs might still result in a transaction that
> exceeds the maximum size
True, sending one by one will cost more in fees. More importantly for me,
it will take a lot more time to send them one by one.
Limiting the number of outputs might still result in a transaction that
exceeds the maximum size, since we don't know how many inputs the
transaction needs. That makes it
I think it is bad to send them one by one. Also, in total that will require
more resources and cost more in fees. You should probably find a reasonable
limit for the number of outputs and create a few larger transactions if
your number of addresses exceed that limit.
Den fredag 14 oktober 2016
Given a large number of output addresses, what's the best way to send a
payment to each one? Assuming the wallet balance is sufficient.
If I send the payments one by one in quick succession, I might get
an InsufficientMoneyException if some of the funds are tied up in change.
I've also tried co
