Print Page - 0-fee transaction

I deliberately created the no-fee transaction http://blockr.io/tx/info/74ccfd796cf2cb404a2245f699fd0e5cdf2a3a6b8a7b9cf1169ff2f87c124557 from my Armory wallet in order to see how long it would take to be confirmed into the blockchain. https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ indicates something like 23-Inf blocks but the number is some sort of best case scenario. I think maybe some/most/all miners aren't bothering to include any no-fee transactions in the reserved section of blocks anymore. I asked the 21.co guys and they said they might try to improve that portion of their fee reporting page. I'm going to leave the transaction alone a while longer to see if it goes through as long as blockr.io still sees it and doesn't drop it.

I don't think so but will my Armory wallet eventually timeout or something automatically or will I have to take deliberate steps to rectify the situation?

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 06, 2017, 07:38:11 PM

Inf means "infinite". I wouldn't call that a "best case scenario".

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 06, 2017, 07:38:11 PM

I think maybe some/most/all miners aren't bothering to include any no-fee transactions in the reserved section of blocks anymore.

You are almost certainly correct.

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 06, 2017, 07:38:11 PM

I asked the 21.co guys and they said they might try to improve that portion of their fee reporting page.

You're looking for them to report a time that is longer than infinity?

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 06, 2017, 07:38:11 PM

I don't think so but will my Armory wallet eventually timeout or something automatically

No, it will not.

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 06, 2017, 07:38:11 PM

or will I have to take deliberate steps to rectify the situation?

Yes, you will.

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 06, 2017, 07:38:11 PM

The transaction may never confirm. You couls leave it to mature for multiple days (probably at least 20 days if not more) and see if it gets confirmed that way.
Althoug even blockchin.info's node is neglecting to sow it's TXid. You could look at a guide to perform an RBF double spend in order to get your coins out that way by setting a higher fee. Else, you could contact the user quickseller in roder to accelerate your transaction (you'll have to pay for this also).

Quote from: jackg on March 08, 2017, 11:20:01 PM

...you could contact the user quickseller in roder to accelerate your transaction (you'll have to pay for this also).

In addition to Quickseller (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=358020) there is another user called macbook-air (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=16114) who also provides a transaction acceleration service. Both of them have access to mining pools and charge a fee for the service. Quickseller's got good reviews.

Quote from: ahmedjadoon on October 27, 2016, 03:52:04 AM

I faced a similar issue a few days back transaction not getting confirmed due to low fee but user "QuickSeller" got my transaction confirmed in minutes when I sent him 0.0001 BTC. He has access to some pool . PM him.

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 06, 2017, 07:38:11 PM

I deliberately created the no-fee transaction http://blockr.io/tx/info/74ccfd796cf2cb404a2245f699fd0e5cdf2a3a6b8a7b9cf1169ff2f87c124557 from my Armory wallet in order to see how long it would take to be confirmed into the blockchain. https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ indicates something like 23-Inf blocks but the number is some sort of best case scenario. I think maybe some/most/all miners aren't bothering to include any no-fee transactions in the reserved section of blocks anymore. I asked the 21.co guys and they said they might try to improve that portion of their fee reporting page. I'm going to leave the transaction alone a while longer to see if it goes through as long as blockr.io still sees it and doesn't drop it.

I don't think so but will my Armory wallet eventually timeout or something automatically or will I have to take deliberate steps to rectify the situation?

The priority transaction space was removed from the default configuration for Bitcoin Core. There was a discussion in the link below (and elsewhere):

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6405

And some more info here:
https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.12.0

In case any miner or pool wants to try confirming the transaction for him, here it is:

Code:

0100000002c745880315c7568638e4702f6ea10ce0ff805d806607a63a994ba0a838a7537d000000008b48304502210098fd86812b6df602cf93abf3dccdf7f26e3a9761c4103b5fe4688edd312b338b02202556de85a672064ecb91cbc41398370c121d53be20383d5795610131d158273301410423d26caa93544c8c1bf07487c2fbf8d61e14a1bdae2f3a89377f06d936a94dc8fbefd767e3a65d598f8fa59a3ce196fadce33d18c19b57cb2a006d71f692276fffffffff3a714a88dc58f959b867463d2410c22442cc6141f4c4933851ca3936134602a2010000008b483045022100a38cbeee5aae4136cbbc3f77ccf2bf894c78e15d525e8bbe44f45739d834694e02205cefd3be298d1524625608cae51b234d9f5e68acb226263a6c0d7bb41aeced020141042b2d11e2376bc04da617c52bd18c284d97f7bbe2c7d36613c809ca870f3c92835f0e593a5fe82d769d63451bed09343bb3a1f5a2c2533527f79cbbb5f2fa3785ffffffff013899d700000000001976a91490e70c293d6a7ca922884df9eaa77beab275316a88ac00000000

Code:

{
   "lock_time":0,
   "size":404,
   "inputs":[
      {
         "prev_out":{
            "index":0,
            "hash":"7d53a738a8a04b993aa60766805d80ffe00ca16e2f70e4388656c715038845c7"
         },
         "script":"48304502210098fd86812b6df602cf93abf3dccdf7f26e3a9761c4103b5fe4688edd312b338b02202556de85a672064ecb91cbc41398370c121d53be20383d5795610131d158273301410423d26caa93544c8c1bf07487c2fbf8d61e14a1bdae2f3a89377f06d936a94dc8fbefd767e3a65d598f8fa59a3ce196fadce33d18c19b57cb2a006d71f692276f"
      },
      {
         "prev_out":{
            "index":1,
            "hash":"a20246133639ca513893c4f44161cc4224c210243d4667b859f958dc884a713a"
         },
         "script":"483045022100a38cbeee5aae4136cbbc3f77ccf2bf894c78e15d525e8bbe44f45739d834694e02205cefd3be298d1524625608cae51b234d9f5e68acb226263a6c0d7bb41aeced020141042b2d11e2376bc04da617c52bd18c284d97f7bbe2c7d36613c809ca870f3c92835f0e593a5fe82d769d63451bed09343bb3a1f5a2c2533527f79cbbb5f2fa3785"
      }
   ],
   "version":1,
   "vin_sz":2,
   "hash":"74ccfd796cf2cb404a2245f699fd0e5cdf2a3a6b8a7b9cf1169ff2f87c124557",
   "vout_sz":1,
   "out":[
      {
         "script_string":"OP_DUP OP_HASH160 90e70c293d6a7ca922884df9eaa77beab275316a OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
         "address":"1EDB65y1BGH4zJc1mREMKowqyneKYVGCgU",
         "value":14129464,
         "script":"76a91490e70c293d6a7ca922884df9eaa77beab275316a88ac"
      }
   ]
}

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 06, 2017, 07:38:11 PM

Hey, what do you know, it went through. So, some no-fee transactions are still getting through eventually. Mine only took 11 days.

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 06, 2017, 07:38:11 PM

I recently done the same thing from my core wallet, which wasn't very successful, i think that no fee transactions have been assigned to the annuals of bitcoin history. i ended up having to do a -zapwallettxs which also didnt work well as other nodes then informed my node of the transaction again. i had to eventually carry out a double spend with a good fee to sort it out. worked a treat.

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 13, 2017, 08:27:39 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 06, 2017, 07:38:11 PM

Hey, what do you know, it went through. So, some no-fee transactions are still getting through eventually. Mine only took 11 days.

Did you pay bitfury to get your transaction confirmed? I am surprised that you were even able to get that to propagate, let alone confirm with the current mempool environment.

@DannyHamilton: Naturally it is the low end of the range that is the relevant/interesting part. The Inf is not especially helpful. The low end of the range, e.g. 16, 23, 25, etc., represents a best case scenario. My transaction took 11 days or approximately 1,584 blocks. Certainly this is in the range but I'm trying to get a feeling for how many blocks to really expect. If Bitfury (and other miners?) are still processing any no-fee transactions then that is interesting. Do *any* no-fee transactions ever get through in at the low end of the reported range? If the https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ guys reported 1584-Inf then that would help folks understand what to expect better. If there comes a day when so few or no miners are packing no-fee transactions into blocks then I would hope the 21.co guys would report Inf-Inf or something to make it clear no-fee transaction are never getting through.

Quote from: stardustin on March 14, 2017, 01:40:26 PM

I can't understand, why bitcoin users have to.pay fees for miners, they have mining rigs and they are mining theirselves, so why was bitcoin designed like that? I prefer 0 fee transactions, even on 0.0001btc, I have to pay 0.0001 fee and that is 0.0002. If I want small transaction, using bitcoin is useless so I have to use bitcoin only on big transactions.

Because miners are doing you a service by including your transaction into the blockchain so that it is permanent. You should pay them for that service, not just take things for granted. Additionally, the block subsidy that miners get decreases every 4 years or so. Pretty soon that block subsidy is going to be very small, and miners will still need to be paid somehow. Mining is an expensive venture, so if they aren't getting paid more than they are spending in electricity, then they won't mine, and if no one mines, the blockchain is not going to grow and your transactions are not going to get confirmed. The whole point of transaction fees is to keep paying the miners when the block subsidy gets low so that they continue mining. The whole point of the block subsidy is to keep the network afloat while Bitcoin is still young, so it is not supposed to last forever.

When the block reward dwindles enough to make mining unprofitable (ignoring fees for the moment) then the miners will face a crisis. They could drop out leaving the business to others. As they drop out the difficulty will decline; perhaps enough so that some remaining miners could still make a profit. If the difficulty drops enough (highly unlikely) then I personally (along with a bunch of other enthusiasts) will fire up mining rigs and run them even if it is unprofitable (it entertains me/us to do so).

If we include fees then the story looks only a little different. If the miners and users can reach a mutually agreeable fee then the miners can remain profitable on fees alone. If not then some miners will drop out and we get the story above.

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 14, 2017, 06:08:09 PM

To me it makes sense to adjust things so that miners can remain profitable on block rewards forever but it's a little too early to really consider that closely yet.

It sounds like you are talking about permanent inflation?

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 14, 2017, 06:08:09 PM

Another approach would be to recognize the social value of Bitcoin and have the public subsidize mining (this will not be a popular approach with many of the Bitcoin community).

You got that right (the not popular part). If Bitcoin is truly a functional and useful system, there is no need for public subsidies (or the strings that will be attached to them). I mean, are these subsidies going to be voluntary? Enforced? Local? Worldwide? Built into the system as permanent inflation?

It disturbs me that anyone would think that the ability to append the block chain should be the responsibility of anyone other than the person trying to append it. Bitcoin, by it's very design, basically hands all the responsibility to the user. That responsibility is what allows such freedom! The social value of Bitcoin is that it empowers the individual at the cost of that individual taking responsibility for his actions!

I just don't understand. Why are you interested in Bitcoin if you are happy to consider sweeping changes that turn Bitcoin into something unrecognizable by those who have embraced it all these years? There is a reason satoshi halved the block reward at precise intervals. Wouldn't it be better to start from scratch and implement these changes from the start in a new system, therefore attracting people who truly desire them, instead of suggesting that there is something wrong with Bitcoin when there are plenty of users who are quite comfortable with the existing system, and in fact have embraced Bitcoin specifically because of these properties?

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 13, 2017, 08:27:39 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 06, 2017, 07:38:11 PM

Hey, what do you know, it went through. So, some no-fee transactions are still getting through eventually. Mine only took 11 days.

VERY interesting to note that it still is possible for a 0-fee tx to confirm. In fact, I had tried late last year also for testing purposes but my Electrum wallet didn't allow 0 fees. I sent 1 sat per kb fee in total and it only took several days. Did you leave your wallet open (as it might have rebroadcasted the tx)? I thought such txs would eventually be forgotten?

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 06, 2017, 07:38:11 PM

I don't think so but will my Armory wallet eventually timeout or something automatically or will I have to take deliberate steps to rectify the situation?

It won't. Armory simply pushes the tx to its supporting node, the node propagates it to the rest of the network. There is no P2P command to dismiss a transaction from the mempool, that would be a massive DoS vector. In other words, once the tx is in the wild, you can only really hope it gets mined, if you aren't going to replace it.

Armory will not drop unconfirmed transactions from its DB until they either mine or are replaced. As the user, you can force Armory to wipe a 0 confirmation tx from your db. It won't dismiss it from mempools, as this can't be done.

Clearing up the zeroconf DB in Armory let's you pick the output for spending again, but there is no guarantee the new tx will propagate since it double spends the first one. Armory does not create RBF inputs to allow for the smooth double spending of 0-conf transactions.

The upcoming version (0.96) supports CPFP to help you "pull" transactions in. RBF support is planned for a later version.

Quote from: Velkro on March 16, 2017, 08:47:29 AM

Too much software/websites have really tragic 'automatic fee system'.
Because of that too many people lost big funds. Sometimes software allows fee bigger than transaction in proportions like 1 BTC fee 0.01 BTC transfer.
That should be prosecuted.

That's probably based on the number of BTC you set as the transactioin fee and the number of scripts you had going into one transaction (based on input transactions).
If you need to transfer that amount and don't need to do it in a particularly lengthy timeframe then you can set the fee to about 100sat/KB and it should confirm within about 24-48 hours (if you want a lower fee).

Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin => Bitcoin Technical Support => Topic started by: David Rabahy on March 06, 2017, 07:38:11 PM