|
What wallet are you using?
In the case you have full control over the receiving address, you should be able to perform CPFP method (Child Pay For Parent). It will cost you much less than the fee such accelerates charge you.
In this method, you need to spend the unconfirmed output with a high fee, so miners include both transactions in a same block.
The unconfirmed transaction is 405 vbyte.
Assuming the receiving address is a nested segwit address and not a multisig address and you make a new transaction with 1 input and 1 output, it will be 133 vbyte.
The total size of transactions (the unconfirmed one and the one you will make for implementing CPFP) is 538 vbyte.
Currently, for getting a fast confirmation (in 1-2 blocks), around 150 sat/byte is needed.
This means that the total fee needs to be 150*538 = 80,700 satoshi.
6736 satoshi has already been paid and you need to pay 73964 satoshi more.
If you make a new transaction from 38Z4oWRGugL3AvVerQvYcqj9jE4upuWhBS to another address (your own addrress) with 556 sat/vbyte, both transaction will be confirmed in a same block.
Note that the required fee rate changes over time.
|
|
|
|
I'm just wondering if the mempool is being cleared of only new transactions that have a lower fee than the one listed - or will all older transactions will be purged over time as well?
Old transactions are removed from the mempool as well. The default mempool maximum size is 300 MB. As the mempool size cannot exceed 300 MB (by default), nodes have to remove transactions paying low fee, so transactions paying higher fee can enter the mempool. |
|
|
|
- It's hard to ensure 10 sats/byte fee as most wallets these days use vbytes... and a 10 sats/vbyte fee may not result in a >10 sats/byte fee... in which case your transaction will be stuck and you won't be able to accelerate it as ViaBTC accelerator uses the sats/byte fee value to determine if you meet the minimum threshold  One solution is just send with >=40 sats/vbyte and you should be good. No need to pay 40 sat/vbyte if the purpose is to be able to use ViaBTC free accelerator. Given the high number of outputs, there shouldn't be a big difference between the size and the virtual size. Assuming Royse777 will send the transaction from a native segwit address and using bitcoindata.science (the tool created by bitmover), a transaction with 1 input and 50 outputs will be 1858 byte and 1678 vbyte. Therefore the size/vsize ratio is only 1.11. If you make the transaction with 11.1 sat/vbyte, it should be 10 sat/byte. To ensure that the 10 sat/byte requirement is met, you can add 10-15% to the fee rate. 12-13 sat/vbyte should be enough. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. |
|
|
|
This transaction has 11 inputs. One of these inputs is the output of another unconfirmed transaction. The first transaction that needs to be confirmed is a3256f2c23efe100505b4f14580ee6a6025fcd9e162ecacaa37a4fc45f1b663fI don't think it's helpful to submit a transaction with an unconfirmed parent on ViaBTC. For confirming the child, ViaBTC have to include the parent as well. I doubt they do this. |
|
|
|
Okey, as I dont have any more to BTC in the wallet I will send some to it..but how much? The fee has to be changed to minimum 1mBTC, should I put more?
You don't have to add any extra fund to your wallet. Just right click on that transaction and select "Increase fee". As you don't have any extra fund in your wallet, the added fee will be deducted from the sending amount. I guess this will make the transaction come back to my wallet and restore the previous sent CPFP transaction as you mentioned?
Correct. By doing RBF for transaction number 2, transaction number 3 will be invalidated and the 0.0679 BTC will be unstuck. |
|
|
|
Edit : just to show it works
Yes, ViaBTC free accelerator works very well if you have precise timing. I have used their free service many times. I just submitted OP's transaction on ViaBTC. It will likely confirmed in the next block ViaBTC mine.  |
|
|
|
bitmover, as shown in the screenshot posted by OP, the transaction has received 119 confirmations. It can't be the transaction OP is going to make. It looks like a withdrawal from an exchange. ( The Transaction shown in the screenshot above) Am I missing something here? |
|
|
|
It's difficult to know, but reading OP's post it sounds like he has sent bitcoin to the address of an old paper wallet which he has previously swept funds from in the past, and no longer has the private key to.
I read the OP again. You seem to be right.
Has this always been the case? I seem to recall a time when Electrum did allow importing keys into HD wallets.
The change was made in the upgrade from version 1.9.8 to version 2.0. In Electrum 2.0, you cannot import private keys in a wallet that has a seed. You should sweep them instead. |
|
|
|
If you swept the private key to electrum, your fund is now in a new address and even if you had the private key of the paper wallet address, it couldn't help you. How did you create the wallet? How did you exactly move the fund to electrum? Do you have the seed phrase (a series of 12 words)? In the case you are using windows, go to following location and check if there's any wallet file. %APPDATA%\Electrum\wallets
|
|
|
|
WTH!?! you can do that? that's awesome
However miners prioritize transactions based on their paid fee, they are able to include any transaction they want. ViaBTC (as one of mining pools) allow people to submit any transaction paying more than 10 sat/byte on their free accelerator,. They accept 100 transactions per hour. If you submit your transaction on ViaBTC accelerator, your transaction will have the chance to be picked by ViaBTC in the next block they mine. Whether your transaction is included or not depends on your luck. ViaBTC may find the next block in a few seconds or it may take more than a day until they find a block. According to the data displayed on ViaBTC homepage, their hashrate is now 15.14 EH/s. The total hashrate is now about 156 EH/s. Therefore, it is estimated that ViaBTC can find one block in every 100 minutes on average.
Then why blockchain.com says it's invalid!
I don't see any message saying the transaction is invalid. Is it possible he replaced the original transaction by bumping the fees and the one you and o_e_l_e_o are looking at is the second transaction (the one with higher fees)?
That may be the case. The transaction I found is not flagged as RBF. Perhaps, OP bumped the fee and checked "Final" option when increasing the fee.
Edit: The transaction is now confirmed. bigbill223, you should see the balance on Coinbase now. |
|
|
|
appreciate the help and figuring out that it was an invalid transaction.
I found your transaction. As stated by o_e_l_e_o, it's not invalid. None of inputs have been double-spent. I just accelerated your transaction using ViaBtc Accelerator. There's a chance your transaction will be confirmed in a few hours. |
|
|
|
is it possible to upgrade for this unconfirmed tsx to segWit-Bech32?
No. It's recommended to hold your coins in segwit addresses to pay lower fee when you make a transaction. As your fund is now in a legacy address (an address starting with 1), there is no way to benefit the discount. From now on, try to use segwit addresses for holding your bitcoin. There are two types of segwit addresses. 1. Native segwit (Bech32): addresses starting with bc1 2. Nested segwit (P2SH): addresses starting with 3* *Just note that not all addresses starting with 3 are segwit. Multisig addresses start with 3 as well. |
|
|
|
I am quite sure that replace-by-fee doesn't allow the sender to change the amounts being broadcasted. You can change the miner fees and the receiving address, but you are still spending the same UTXO. Therefore, if the original sum was 0.0055 mBTC, it has to stay 0.0055 mBTC. D
You can change the amount by adding more UTXO(s) or removing UTXO(s). Let's say the original transaction is as follows. Input A -------> Output A Input B This transaction can be replaced by following transactions. Input A -------> Output B (higher fee) Input A Input B -------> Output B (higher fee) Input C Input A -------> Output B (higher fee) Input C |
|
|
|
Could you explain your calculations hosseinimr93?
Why do you take 0.5/10,000 and not 1/10,000 ? I don't get it.
AFAIK it's wrong.
The chance of hitting 10,000 is not 1 in 10,000. That's 0.5 in 10,000. Every time you play free roll, some calculations are done and a decimal number between 0 and 10,000 is obtained. The decimal number is rounded to the nearest integer. For hitting 10,000, the decimal number needs to be between 9,999.50 and 10,000. The chance of never hitting 10,000 in 10,000 rolls is (1- 0.00005) 10,000 = 0.607 = 60.7% The chance of hitting 10,000 at least one time in 10,000 rolls is 1 - 60.7 = 39.3% |
|
|
|
The weird thing about hitting that one in a ten thousand deal is the fact that people think in 10k tries you can get one.
Correct. The probability of winning the 200 dollar prize in 10,000 rolls is only 39.3% 1- (1- ( 0.5/ 10,000)) 10,0000 = 0.393 = 39.3% |
|
|
|
I don't think Bitcoin.com uses any nonstandard derivation path and OP stated that it's BIP44. The built in function should serve OP just fine and won't be leaking that much privacy nor add any extra complexity.
I tested that. I generated a seed phrase using bitcoin.com wallet and imported it into electrum. I got same addresses without any trouble. The derivation path is m/44'/0'/0'. |
|
|
|
5.97% 7-day APY means that you will receive 5.97% profit annually and the interest is paid every 7 days. The profit you will get every 7 days: (1.0597) (7/365) - 1 = 0.00111 = 0.111% after 7 day, how much I receive ? please tell me
$0.666 |
|
|
|
Electrum follows the BIP39 standard and its own seed generation standard. I'm not sure, but I don't think that bitcoin.com follows any of them (surely not the last one).
I just installed bitcoin.com wallet on an android phone just to see how it works. It does generate BIP39 seed phrase. Below is the seed I just generated using bitcoin.com 
So I should just select BIP39 then?
Yes. And check "legacy (p2pkh)" in the next step. |
|
|
|
|
First of all let me assure you that there's nothing to worry about in the case you have sent the fund to the correct address. You can recover your bitcoin, even without any need to bitcoin core and having the whole blockchain.
If you have sent the fund to correct address, you can export the private key of the address you sent the fund to and import it into another wallet like electrum.
Now let's go to zero balance issue.
Does bitcoin core run when you open Armory? Does Armory says "connected" at bottom right corner of the window? Or it says "Node offline"?
Perhaps, Armory isn't connected to bitcoin core properly.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
