Transaction

58fb9e0da5a78a4dd32a928d9f5d218cbea4f390d524ce29c46b0cd4eae31037
Timestamp (utc)
2024-03-29 15:38:51
Fee Paid
0.00000013 BSV
(
0.00339291 BSV
-
0.00339278 BSV
)
Fee Rate
10 sat/KB
Version
1
Confirmations
92,914
Size Stats
1,299 B

2 Outputs

Total Output:
0.00339278 BSV
  • j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckM<div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=383.msg3505#msg3505">Quote from: satoshi on July 16, 2010, 03:09:59 PM</a></div><div class="quote">Because of all the dependencies that different systems don't have.&nbsp; It's easier to just static link what we can.&nbsp; It doesn't increase the size by very much.<br/></div><br/>I think size (static binary is 8x as big in my case) is not the problem, but security.<br/><br/>Boost, openssl and Berkeley DB are fairly common on unix systems (many things depend on them) and also Wxwidgets (the only argument is that bitcoin uses the current development branch and not the stable branch). Second, static linking doesn't mean you can always run it (in my case it tries to load libpng-1.2, which is not present on my system, libpng-1.4 is, and the static fails to load). Third, openssl hasn't been free of security issues, by statically compiling people keep using the insecure version even if their system provides an updated safe version. <br/><br/></div> text/html
    https://whatsonchain.com/tx/58fb9e0da5a78a4dd32a928d9f5d218cbea4f390d524ce29c46b0cd4eae31037