Bitcoin Forum

Someone sent me some BTC last night but the transaction is still unconfirmed. Is there anything I can do to speed up this transaction?

http://blockchain.info/tx/7560d6b56b48eac36d2b07ee349b258cac25fa7ddfd47ce28cd3b8a51f474f53

You need to wait for this transaction to complete first.

1NwuKxJ8cGH4EUr8NfuAnneQDNshGfbzsa (U) (0.00777 BTC - Output)

According to blockchain, It will take 6 hours to complete this transaction ^ then some more minutes to finish your transaction.

Also dude, some bitcoins?  ;D (204.39631 BTC)

That transaction keeps getting longer and longer, last night it said it would be 4 hours now its up to 6 hours, Is there anything I can do to reset the transaction and start it again as I need these coins confirmed and in my wallet today. If anyone can help me with a solution of getting these coins asap into my wallet there's a 0.39631 bounty in it for you. Thanks

Well, I think your friend need to delete that 204.39631 BTC transaction first using pywallet.py
https://github.com/jackjack-jj/pywallet/blob/master/pywallet.py
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34028.0

Then he need import wallet to some other client* (ex: electrum) and send bitcoins (less 0.00777) again.

*Bitcoin-qt and blockchain.info won't let you do this.

Ps: I'm not sure, wait for some expert's opinion.

It depends on how you made the first transaction.
I heard that when it's from a blockchain.info wallet, then blockchain.info keeps broadcasting the tx
If it's from bitcoin-qt though, yeah you (he) can delete that transaction from your (his) wallet with pywallet

Also, bitcoin-qt can import keys. I don't know about blockchain.info but I think so

It was sent from blockchain.info wallet, so is there not much I can actually do here then?

Well yes  :(

I don't know for sure as it's just something I read once, so I would check in blockchain.info
Seems strange they didn't implement such a feature

[/quote]

It isn't part of memory pool selection rules in bitcoind.  Most (all?) major pools use custom software but AFAIK unless it has changed recently no pool does "forward looking of fees". 

The OP has two solutions:
The first solution is to delete the offending transactions locally (requires some wallet.dat surgery).  Other nodes including miners will "forget" about the unconfirmed transactions in time (I believe 24 hours?).  This would allow creating a replacement transaction with an appropriate fee to ensure timely inclusion.

The second solution is to contact a pool operator directly, provide them the transaction hash(es) and for a manually paid bounty (fee) they may be willing to manually add the offending transactions to the pool's next block.  IIRC Luke has done this in the past.

If both of those solutions sound like they suck, well that is the point.  The mandatory fee rules exist to protect the network from a denial of service attack.  If one could create 600 outputs using 22KB for a mere 0.0005 BTC (about 1.2 cents) then one could also create transactions totaling ~30,000 transactions and 1 MB for about $0.50.  For less than minimum wage an attacker could denial of service attack the largest computing network in the world and add roughly about 4GB of spam to the blockchain per month.

Simple version:  DON'T BYPASS MANDATORY ANTI-SPAM RULES.  They exist to protect the network.  When you bypass them the network teats the transaction like a threat and the "immune system" which consists of dropping and delaying high-cost low-value transactions kicks in.
[/quote]

would his work for my situation, link to thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=143266.0;all

First solution doesn't work as the tx wasn't locally created
Second solution is really annoying...

If you're sure that blockchain.info doesn't allow deleting transactions, I'd "double spend" the transaction
There should be good howto's about that out there

I can provide a short one if you can't find one

tried looking for ways t double spend but Im not having much luck, I sent you a pm if you can still help me out

This is really stupid, 204btc transaction blocked for 0,0077 btc
I hope they fix this in the future :/

I just saw it, I'll answer here so that anyone with a similar problem can read it

First of all: contacting a pool operator it's annoying because you have to use/trust a third party and requires to create the raw transaction. But it is working.

Double spending
Must be done with the sending wallet. Ie "you" = the guy who sends the funds

See this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=231309.0

This isn't really that hard to fix.  The sender just needs to do the following:

1) Export the private key from blockchain.info (viewing the paper wallet is a pretty easy way to get the private key)
2) Import the private key into bitcoin-qt (obviously on a secure computer)
3) Use Pywallet to delete all transactions
4) launch bitcoin-qt with -rescan

After the above 4 steps are complete, the balance will be in the bitcoin-qt wallet and will be spendable.

I've deliberately kept this short, if you need assistance on any of the above steps, just let me know.

Edit... Jackjack has written a really good double spending guide here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=231309.0
It turns out that my number 3 above isn't necessary as the transaction hasn't been written to the blockchain, so there is no need to delete the transactions.

It seems that every time this issue comes up it's from the blockchain.info wallet.  Wouldn't it be trivial to stop the user from sending a transaction with a sub .01 output unless a sufficient fee is included?

I'm not hating, I love the blockchain.info service.  Just saying this should be easily avoided with a small verification prior to sending.

It is a problem with the android app. An update (https://github.com/blockchain/My-Wallet-Android/commit/590ee7f5ef94c54950f9b4a043a975df7975ebc0) which fixes the problem was released yesterday.

Is there any way to get https://blockchain.info/pushtx to stop broadcasting an unconfirmed raw tx (no fee, etc.)? Or can you try double-spending with fee even while it's still broadcasting? (Risky?)

No. Yes. (no)