Bitcoin Forum

I have executed a transaction with BTC and I am now waiting for 6 hours and still have 0 confirmations.

Is the network jammed again for some reason? Or what is the deal with it?

Just another example of why we will never see Bitcoin come back - it is far too unstable for real use.

And everytime it is unstable Bitcoin-cult-believers come with the excuse that "xxxxx will be implemented soon and solve all problems and the Bitcoin will go to the moon"

Face it - it is useless for anything except to hide payments in the criminal underworld

Send the transaction hash so that I can see what the problem is.

Which unit got a transaction and which pool processes it?

I think you chose too small a commission.

Yes , very many times, this is the problem. Most times when you choose or reduce transaction fee, the processing gets delayed. I do believe patient is what you need.

take a look, here all done with minimum fees of 1 sat/B

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1V3ncM1s6pDzk8hmTuexvdbkTwTpVN8qZ

There can be several factors, maybe you sent a low commission and that's why it's taking so long, I always try to send the highest in periods like this, is less than 1 dollar and they make the transaction in 10 or 30min, so it's pretty good for me, especially that I'm always in trouble when I'm trading with btc haha.

The Main Factor is btc sucks, and using litecoin or dogecoin or any alt would have been there much faster.

 8)

It's just a period of congestion. At the moment, you need to pay 10-15 satoshis/byte to get confirmed in the next block.

Congestion has also been exacerbated lately by drops in hash rate. Before the difficulty adjustment earlier today, blocks were being generated only once every 11-12 minutes. Less blocks = less confirmed transactions. There was a difficulty adjustment today which normalized block times, but hash rate has dropped again so blocks are only being generated once every 10.6 minutes instead of every 10 minutes.

This must be the reason why litecoin and dogecoin are worth so much less and have such a small trading volume. Because they're much better and BTC sucks. LOL

It's not jammed. You need to pay 40 sat/byte. If you pay 10 or less you can expect big delays.
https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/

How much you paid for the fee? Looking on how many unconfirmed transactions are there, I guess this is just an average number - 16,500 unconfirmed transactions. Usually I see 3k TX's as the normal number.

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/unconfirmed-transactions

Can you show your TXID?

35 blocks processes in 6 hours

expectant is 6 blocks an hour.. so id say blocks are being solved roughly on time. so no reason to blame the blockchain
though it does seem many blocks are 100% full

mempool tx count did see low mempool of under 5k tx yesterday, then sudden 15k-20k tx count today. so seems a bit of spam/extra tx to contend against. so anyone making low fee transactions usually dont get priority
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/mempool-count?timespan=1week

though this amount of mempool is not considered huge (january 2018 had mempool of awaiting transactions at 200k)

Please don't use bitcoin to send money somewhere if you want it to go through quickly. It's meant to be a store of value not a currency.

If your Bitcoin transaction is still not confirmed use the replace by fee feature .If your wallet doesn't have that feature better switch to a different wallet so you don't have to wait for hours.

Why not? There's nothing wrong in using Bitcoin as a currency. What if the receiver only accepts Bitcoin ?

^
look how low and bottom of the barrel things get, where people make loads of new accounts to try telling people not to use bitcoin

in this topic alone i think i have spotted 3 posts made by 1 person using 3 different accounts.
and separately a bunch of new accounts that think they know best. trying to tell people that bitcoin is bad

the only thing bad about bitcoin is the lack of development. the developers want people to think bitcoin is bad because they have $$millions involved in promoting other networks

bitcoin lost its fee priority mechanism 4 years ago due to developers. and developers should have put in a new fe priority that does a better job. they didnt.

having 20k tx's in mempool all using the same suggested low fee's simply because of badly coded fee 'estimate' is like having a 2000 seat airplane where the airport had a bad seat booking system that has 20k passangers all paying economy seat prices. thus the captains dont know who deserves the seats the most.

bitcoin blockchain is not broke. but the node software that aids users to choose a fee needs sorting

yes lotsof these post are made by new accounts only, maybe people find a trouble and then findout about bitcointalk and then account, but the way newbie accounts being expert on bitcoin is extremely suspicious

Who is promoting other networks?


The fee priority mechanism was just node policy. As I recall, miners had mostly all removed it from their nodes so it was eventually removed from the reference client. Developers aren't really in a position to force new fee policies on miners.

I also had it, I wrote that now in the priority of the transaction for large sums, so please wait

It sounds more like the person you helped buying Bitcoin wasn't well informed, which was your job to begin with if you acted as a guide. Don't blame Bitcoin's network for that.

If it concerns a trade (which generally is considered a priority transaction), include an above average fee to make sure it's almost "guaranteed" to be put in the next block. I do so too and it works like a charm. 9 out of 10 transactions that I send are included in the next block.

Something must be done to inform people on how to use a decentralized ledger, because it works perfect for me.

I have created a paper purse, also create an account in blockchain.info 


Now I want to buy a bitcoin in person localbitcoin.com and tell that person that I sent it to my paper Wallet 


How could I use the accounting book to make sure I made this transaction correctly

they forced segwit......................

No, they didn't.

Miners activated Segwit. If miners were "forced" by anything, it was the threat of BIP 148, which was never part of the reference client. Many Core developers were opposed to merging the UASF -- on such a rushed timeline or at all -- and it never was.

Miners made a conscious decision to activate Segwit to prevent a chain split with users enforcing BIP 148. Core nodes would have sided with majority hashpower either way.

Its happen to me too. Sometimes i should waiting more than 6 hours before receiving my bitcoin. I dont know about technical problem but it might be because too many transaction in bitcoin network and makes transaction become slower. But hopely in the future, bitcoin transaction become more faster

Well, I used a blockchain.info wallet which has transaction fee fixed and predetermined. Not sure how much it was. Maybe they should update their fees, right?

Anyone can suggest a better wallet, maybe?

bip9 did not have a august deadline
bip9 would not have caused a controversial split/fork. it would have been an accept or reject. where
if 95% agreed 5% are left receiving stripped data.
if there wasnt an agreement, things just carry on under 2016's ruleset
in short
bip 9 would have meant core devs would have had to put their tail between their legs, and gone back to the drawing board.

however the other bip. forced a fake vote. where nodes had no choice(compatibility) and pools objecting were just not counted/not included in the vote

the august event was not consensus. but as you twistingly admit. miners under threat of an august event where they would end up thrown out the network unless they comply.
if you think that there was no august event. you might want to do some research
the miners conscious decision was not a free choice it was a gun to the head decision to remain conscious on the network or be made unconscious outside the network

secondly you twistingly avoid the fact that core nodes didnt need to have it in because they pre-programmed their nodes to not even get a vote due to "compatibility". meaning the few nodes that would cause a controversial split would just supply the "compatibles" with stripped block data. meaning no need to put it in core because they already done what was needed so that they can shift the blame, while also still wave their hands in the air they want segwit.

The bitcoin network is slow these days. One of the many reason could be the low bitcoin price which may not attract the miners and therefore less miners would means more time processing the transactions.

the same developers shouting blockchains cant scale and LN is the future.
i say if a bitcoin dev cant develop bitcoin. then they need to move out of bitcoin contributing and move into LN contributing full time. and to fully stop putting code into bitcoin that is only being added to make bitcoin compatible with alternative networks

bitcoin devs should be bitcoin innovation devs. not alternative network promoters and converters

This is the result of the reduction of market mineralization. The market is getting worse than ever before, the miners stop working, the deal not exploited, so the move not done. I think you should increase the transaction fee higher if the transaction is confirmed.

Pointing out the scaling limitations of blockchains =  promoting other networks?

In truth, blockchains don't scale well. Adding exponentially more throughput to the mainchain would encourage mining centralization to sidestep latency problems (or otherwise cause high orphan rates and regular unintentional forking) and would discourage full node operation due to bandwidth requirements.

Sharding is one approach to solving this problem. Offchain payment channels are another. Tree chains are another. Why do you think so many people are working on ways to achieve exponential scale? Because blockchains can't do it. They scale linearly, which is extremely limiting. The Core developers have done a great job optimizing for better scale, but there's only so much they can do.

Check for some problems with regards on your transaction. Drop down the transaction hash for everyone to know and help you in this issue.

I'm using Exodus and never have any problems. It seems to set a correct fee for fast processing.

look passed the usual "must defend a dev" mindset.
it gets soo funny when people revert to defend a certain dev group rather than defend the network

its soo obvious
LN is not a bitcoin feature. it is its own independent network that happens to let multiple coins that are made compatible to function with it. bitcoin being just one

LN is just using bitcoin as the test coin to glory hound some investment.
as for scaling BITCOIN (not finding ways to tether altcoins and altnetworks to bitcoin) but to scale bitcoin can be done easily
and if you think its so linear. then i guess your just reading the standard scripts of "bitcoin is broke LN is the future" promo posters

it reminds me of history
digital photography wont work because floppy disks or servers
digital photography wont work because linear scaling of solid state media

people with that mindset are like kodak at the millenia

I acknowledge that. Lightning is a different protocol made to be interoperable with Bitcoin. Same with sidechains. They have different security models and different trade-offs. I see that as a good thing. I don't see why every payment needs to be published on the blockchain, or why every payment needs Bitcoin's security guarantees.


Why don't you explain it then?

No one is forcing anyone to use Core software. If you doni't like how Core software guesstimates the best recommended fee, then you can use any other software, or you can go on and code your own node software.

Blaming Core because "they don't raise the blocksize" is delusional and a waste of time. Even if Core said yes:

1) There would be a lot of people in Core that wouldn't agree because there are too many people now
2) There would be other people with skin in the game that wouldn't agree that aren't part of Core

You need unanimous agreement otherwise you get 2 chains again and more nonsense (see the Bcash ABC vs BCash Craig insanity)

The decrease in the bandwidth of the Bitcoin network in early December 2018 is most likely due to the shutdown of equipment by many miners due to a decrease in profit. This is a temporary phenomenon, because the complexity of mining Bitcoin adapts to the overall hashrate of the network and decreases over time. The transaction will not disappear anywhere, and sooner or later it will be included in the blockchain.

Did you sending your bitcoin using the exchange or your own wallet with the blockchain database?
If you sent btc from your desktop personal wallet, i think there are something wrong in your blockchain database.
But if you sent your btc from exchange wallet or 3rd party wallet, you need to contact the developers of the wallet.

I sent my bitcoin from wallet (blockchain.info) to exchange. The wallet has a "fixed" transaction cost - it cannot be changed. Probably they just needed to readjust the transaction fees to the network.

Bitcoin in such development stage will be overthrown. It sucks as a payment medium. Maybe only as a value holder as it has a fixed supply in the future (like gold).

yes yesterday I experienced the same thing sending btc but still had zero confirmation for 6 hours, is this a blockchain system upgrade?

You can't think strangely about transactions, there are now so many bitcoin users around the world, many of which even make transactions with the various businesses they run, so if you make a transaction that is problematic or fails in a transaction, you have to wait.
Because each country has a different network quality. And the network they use is certainly not comparable to what we have

You should give transaction fees or commission transactions that match the current market price, when you try to reduce the value of transaction costs, what you get is difficulty getting confirmation quickly. actually this concept is similar to the shipping courier, when you want your bitcoin assets to be sent quickly then you have to give more money to it.