<p><a href="http://blockchain.info/wallet" rel="nofollow">Blockchain.info/wallet</a> is a hybrid E-Wallet.  It has a wallet sync browser plugin which will synchronize the web-based wallet with the wallet.dat on your local client.  It does this using the RPC interface.</p>

<p>That way you can spend from the local client and then any new addresses generated will automatically show up when using Blockchain.info/wallet via the web or mobile, and vice-versa.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-18T10:42:33.200Z
2013-04-18T10:42:33.200Z
Stephen Gornick
<p>[Edit: Read comment as to why this is not a good idea.]</p>

<p>You could just store the <code>wallet.dat</code> file on both computers, which contains your entire wallet. Then both computers will be able to spend from the same wallet.</p>

<p>Do make sure to copy the wallet to the other computer from time to time: if you don't synchronize regularly, the balances might start mismatching because the private keys are no longer the same.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-18T09:42:37.277Z
do private keys change over time????
knocte
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-18T09:51:44.717Z
No, but in most cases you'll use multiple addresses, which means you'll sometimes generate new private keys. The Bitcoin-qt client stores a few private keys ahead so you can synchronize the wallet sometimes, but you still need to synchronize the wallet after every x transactions (let's say 10 or 20, to be safe).
Tom van der Woerdt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-18T10:32:09.970Z
If you are spending from both wallets they will be out of sync instantly and permanently.   The same bitcoin Wallet.dat was not meant to be used simultaneously in two different places.  http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/4904/153
Stephen Gornick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-18T10:44:05.060Z
@StephenGornick I don't really see why syncing it every 20 transactions wouldn't work, as the only thing that changes is the set of private keys, which sync nicely.
Tom van der Woerdt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-18T10:51:35.987Z
Especially in case I make a point of using only one address (I'm not big on anonymity), there should be exactly zero problem I think?
SF.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-18T10:54:28.690Z
As long as both clients have access to the full set of *current* private keys, I don't think anything will go wrong. The client wasn't built for it, but it'll probably work. As both clients also have access to a (limited) subset of the *future* private keys, creating multiple addresses should also work fine.
Tom van der Woerdt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-29T10:56:57.347Z
Or just generate 10000 keys in advance.
Murch
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-18T09:29:53.193Z
2013-04-18T10:31:13.340Z
2013-04-18T10:31:13.340Z
Tom van der Woerdt
<p>I use a few computers and would like to perform bitcoin transactions from any of them. Thing is, I'm not very fond of the idea of paying the fee and waiting every time I want to transfer the coins from one computer to another. Is there any other simple, convenient, easy "out of band" method of transferring coins between computers?</p>

<p>(I realize an online wallet service would solve my problem but I really don't like the idea of trusting a 3rd party with my bitcoins)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-18T10:39:55.953Z
Seriously, 0.0005 BTC is a dealbreaker?
Stephen Gornick
<transactions><offline>
What is a cost-efficient, fast and easy method of transferring btc between own computers?
SF.
# What is a cost-efficient, fast and easy method of transferring btc between own computers?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-04-18)

I use a few computers and would like to perform bitcoin transactions from any of them. Thing is, I'm not very fond of the idea of paying the fee and waiting every time I want to transfer the coins from one computer to another. Is there any other simple, convenient, easy "out of band" method of transferring coins between computers?

(I realize an online wallet service would solve my problem but I really don't like the idea of trusting a 3rd party with my bitcoins)

**Tags:** transactions, offline

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Seriously, 0.0005 BTC is a dealbreaker?  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2013-04-18. Score: 0 | Accepted answer

[Blockchain.info/wallet](http://blockchain.info/wallet) is a hybrid E-Wallet. It has a wallet sync browser plugin which will synchronize the web-based wallet with the wallet.dat on your local client. It does this using the RPC interface.

That way you can spend from the local client and then any new addresses generated will automatically show up when using Blockchain.info/wallet via the web or mobile, and vice-versa.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2013-04-18. Score: 1

[Edit: Read comment as to why this is not a good idea.]

You could just store the `wallet.dat` file on both computers, which contains your entire wallet. Then both computers will be able to spend from the same wallet.

Do make sure to copy the wallet to the other computer from time to time: if you don't synchronize regularly, the balances might start mismatching because the private keys are no longer the same.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: do private keys change over time????  
> **username_2**: No, but in most cases you'll use multiple addresses, which means you'll sometimes generate new private keys. The Bitcoin-qt client stores a few private keys ahead so you can synchronize the wallet sometimes, but you still need to synchronize the wallet after every x transactions (let's say 10 or 20, to be safe).  
> **username_1**: If you are spending from both wallets they will be out of sync instantly and permanently.   The same bitcoin Wallet.dat was not meant to be used simultaneously in two different places.  http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/4904/153  
> **username_2**: @username_1 I don't really see why syncing it every 20 transactions wouldn't work, as the only thing that changes is the set of private keys, which sync nicely.  
> **username_0**: Especially in case I make a point of using only one address (I'm not big on anonymity), there should be exactly zero problem I think?  
> **username_2**: As long as both clients have access to the full set of *current* private keys, I don't think anything will go wrong. The client wasn't built for it, but it'll probably work. As both clients also have access to a (limited) subset of the *future* private keys, creating multiple addresses should also work fine.  
> **username_4**: Or just generate 10000 keys in advance.  

---

