Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin => Electrum => Topic started by: marked on February 04, 2012, 07:32:36 PM



Title: Electrum created a negative balance - rounding errors
Post by: marked on February 04, 2012, 07:32:36 PM

I had 0.006btc and sent out 0.0059 with a 0.0001 tx fee to create a 0.00 balance. The 0.006 was built with 6 0.001 transactions.

The transaction is now 7 hours STILL awaiting confirmation.

please explain how to get confirmed transaction and from the following....

>Electrum-0.35-Build1.exe history

pending   62d4b6 ...  -0.006000   -0.000000
# balance:  -1.73472347598e-18

I think there are some rounding errors somewhere within the code.

marked


Title: Re: Electrum created a negative balance - rounding errors
Post by: vuce on February 04, 2012, 07:38:08 PM
Using floating point numbers? Oh my.


Title: Re: Electrum created a negative balance - rounding errors
Post by: marked on February 04, 2012, 07:40:42 PM
and the thing is the recipient can see the transaction, it's just sitting at 0.0059 with 0 confirmed. blockexplorer doesn't even see the tx id...

marked


Title: Re: Electrum created a negative balance - rounding errors
Post by: vuce on February 04, 2012, 07:43:26 PM
and the thing is the recipient can see the transaction, it's just sitting at 0.0059 with 0 confirmed. blockexplorer doesn't even see the tx id...

marked
That's because it's been broadcasted but not yet included in a block. It probably has a low priority.


Title: Re: Electrum created a negative balance - rounding errors
Post by: marked on February 04, 2012, 09:20:10 PM
That's because it's been broadcasted but not yet included in a block. It probably has a low priority.

because of the 0.0001 tx fee, not 0.0005?


it has now finally cleared - still have the negative balance though. I didn't think that was possible.

>Electrum-0.35-Build1.exe history

2012-02-04 20:07:04   62d4b6...f  -0.006000   -0.000000
# balance:  -1.73472347598e-18

only took nine hours to confirm.

marked


Title: Re: Electrum created a negative balance - rounding errors
Post by: vuce on February 04, 2012, 09:37:08 PM
That's because it's been broadcasted but not yet included in a block. It probably has a low priority.

because of the 0.0001 tx fee, not 0.0005?
larger transactions have higher priority, and transactions with older inputs have higher priority. My guess is after 9 hours inputs were old enough someone would actually process it.


Title: Re: Electrum created a negative balance - rounding errors
Post by: ThomasV on February 04, 2012, 10:51:25 PM
Using floating point numbers? Oh my.
indeed, the command-line interface interface displays amounts with floating point numbers; thanks for spotting it, I will fix it.


Title: Re: Electrum created a negative balance - rounding errors
Post by: marked on February 05, 2012, 06:04:02 PM
[quote author=ThomasV link=topic=62609.msg731479#msg731479
indeed, the command-line interface interface displays amounts with floating point numbers; thanks for spotting it, I will fix it.
[/quote]

who do I need to  nudge to get the windows client recompiled, or do i need to pull and compile myself?

marked


Title: Re: Electrum created a negative balance - rounding errors
Post by: ThomasV on February 05, 2012, 08:50:51 PM
who do I need to  nudge to get the windows client recompiled, or do i need to pull and compile myself?

marked

there's a dedicated thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53858


Title: Re: Electrum created a negative balance - rounding errors
Post by: marked on February 06, 2012, 01:07:38 AM
there's a dedicated thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53858

thanks -  thread nudged.

mark


Title: Re: Electrum created a negative balance - rounding errors
Post by: Red Emerald on February 18, 2012, 12:20:37 AM
Just the display was floats, right? I hope they aren't being stored as floats in the backend


Title: Re: Electrum created a negative balance - rounding errors
Post by: ThomasV on February 18, 2012, 05:29:38 AM
Just the display was floats, right? I hope they aren't being stored as floats in the backend
indeed, it was just the display.