I've sent about 10 Bitcoin payments over the past year and never had issues. My most recent payment hasn't been confirmed after nearly 2 days (I was using an old version of Tails, so my Electrum didn't have the RBF option), so I decided to try Child Pays for Payment after updating to 2.8.2.
However, I miscalculated the fee. Instead of paying .0022 BTC/kb for the total size, I only paid .0022 BTC/kb for the child payment, which obviously isn't much. I tried increasing the fee to the correct amount of .00319 BTC total (my wallet has .0173 BTC remaining), but Electrum just says "Cannot bump fee: could not find suitable outputs."
If I just wait, will both transactions eventually cancel and return to my wallet? Or is there something else I should try?
Thank you for any help.
Original transaction ID: 0cf4b23dc1fab5ca38a497498947ed76de184b077618419802ed456c4e3e9d70
Child transaction ID: 0cf4b23dc1fab5ca38a497498947ed76de184b077618419802ed456c4e3e9d70
yes, if you wait long enough, most nodes on the network will eventually drop both transactions from their mempool, and you should be able to re-create the original transaction with the same inputs. There are many other options to get your transaction into a block: https://www.mocacinno.com/feecheck.php?txid=0cf4b23dc1fab5ca38a497498947ed76de184b077618419802ed456c4e3e9d70For example, you could use viabtc, pay a miner, double spend the inputs for the transaction into a new transaction with a higher fee, double spend the inputs you used for the CPFP but leave a higher fee,... Since you're sending between your own wallets, i'd personally try to create a brand new transaction using all or most of the inputs you used for transaction 0cf4b23dc1fab5ca38a497498947ed76de184b077618419802ed456c4e3e9d70. This would cause a double spend, and once the new transaction with a higher fee makes it into a block, transaction 0cf4b23dc1fab5ca38a497498947ed76de184b077618419802ed456c4e3e9d70 will be using inputs that are no longer in the UTXO, thus it will be voided. This will cause your CPFP tx to be voided to, since it relies on outputs from the previous tx. This way, i think the end result would be a bit cleaner, plus you won't have to pay the fees twice, plus you won't take up unneccesary space in a block. Offcourse, waiting will work to... The tx will either be dropped from the mempool of most nodes, or some miner will decide to add you to the block he is currently working on, and with a bit of luck, the transaction(s) might actually confirm... |
|
|
|
So does that mean I won't be able to send BTC because the network is not reliable? And I need to wait for days to hope that some magic happens.
Developers don't work like that. I mean then what's the point of having a test network, where you can not test your functionalities.
Is there something wrong with electrum, or bitcoin test network is not reliable at all?
What are my other options to test electrum functionalities? I don't want to use real BTC for testing purpose, they are too costly to lose if I make any silly mistake :p
I can only tell you things out of personal experiences i had a long time ago... Maybe recently the test network is more stable, i couldn't tell you, but a long time ago, i personally didn't think it was all that stable. AFAIK, the test network is constantly getting used for all kinds of tests, protocol tests, asicboost, spam attacks, segwit, LN,... Combine this with a lower node count and fluctuating hashrate... Maybe i'm wrong, this is just my gut feeling after using it for my own education a longer time ago. But as far as development goes, if you use outputs that have been in the UTXO set for a long time, coming from transactions that made it into blocks a long time ago, you should be able to use the test network for development purposes, especially if you run bitcoind -testnet, since you'd be using only your own node when developing. AFAIK, electrum connects to 8 nodes, and can potentially switch the main node each time you connect, so if one of the 8 nodes has more or less blocks, a completely different UTXO set, a different mempool,... Things might seems strange. You don't have this problem if you run your own node, since that would be the only place where you look for transactions, blocks, mempool entries, utxo,... |
|
|
|
Without power costs, they make $111/year at current diff, block reward and btc price. I strongly believe that the diff will rise, i'm not sure if the price will rise to tough... http://www.coinwarz.com/calculators/bitcoin-mining-calculator/?h=450.00&p=366.00&pc=0&pf=0.50&d=521974519553.62800000&r=12.50000000&er=1408.60000000&hc=0.00If we factor in a small power price of 5 cents/kwu, it'll cost a miner about $160/year to run these machines while only make $111/year in btc (and dropping). http://www.coinwarz.com/calculators/bitcoin-mining-calculator/?h=450.00&p=366.00&pc=0.05&pf=0.50&d=521974519553.62800000&r=12.50000000&er=1408.60000000&hc=0.00The current break even power price seems to be 3 cents/kwu or less... It'll even drop further in the future as the diff goes up. If you pay more than 3 cents/kwu, you'll lose money while mining, if you pay 3 cents you'll make $14/year profit at current network conditions and price... http://www.coinwarz.com/calculators/bitcoin-mining-calculator/?h=450.00&p=366.00&pc=0.03&pf=0.50&d=521974519553.62800000&r=12.50000000&er=1408.60000000&hc=0.00Long story short, i (and maybe other people) would be willing to buy these S3's (if they are in good condition) either as a toy to tinker with, an educational tool, a conversation starter, part of a collection, or as a loud space heater... Either way, i wouldn't give more than $10-$15 for one piece, escrow and shipping included. If i'd buy 4 or 5, i'd even expect a discount. |
|
|
|
Thanks all for the analysis. It helps me clarify a lot since this is just my first transaction.
And the seller sent me the bitcoin again and it got confirmed within 5 minutes. He said it was the fault of Bitcoin network, something wrong happened in the last few days.
I'm happy for you that things got resolved, but the explanation the sender gave you doesn't seem right... There was/is nothing *wrong* with the network... He just created a chain of unconfirmed transactions, and then started double spending outputs he already used as input for different transactions... This is an error made by the sender, or at least by his wallet... He shouldn't try to pass the blame to the protocol, he should just admit he was using an old wallet, or some buggy software that used json-rpc querys to bitcoind that went haywire, or maybe he was testing some stuff or something. Just my opinion tough. |
|
|
|
I am using test network with Electrum. I was trying to send BTC's to my other account for testing purpose. I used following inputs: PayTo: mkjz22n7KPJbUrz39EnQyuAMM64kHbxGUE
Description: Transferred for Testing
Amount: 1 mBTC
Fee Slider: Max I have selected dynamic fee from tools-->preferences. I have 975.0 mBTC in my account. When I try to send Transaction, on the screen asking for Password, I can see: Amount to be sent: 1 mBTC
Mining fee: 0.231 mBTC On broadcasting the transaction, I get an error like: error: The transaction was rejected by network rules. (Missing inputs) [0100000001c134301949b84f41a7570e7556d47d88b645ec914a6291eb28432aa5a69ba082000000006a473044.. I am not sure if I am missing anything? I provided all the inputs asked in Send tab, the what does this missing input means? TIA Well, all i can say is that i personally used the test network for educational purposes, and i did think it wasn't that stable, the nodes don't seem to rely blocks that efficient or something... I didn't investigate the root cause, but the end result was that sometimes blocks and transactions seemed to take a really long time to propagate trough the network (no proof tough). This error basically says that one node has an output in it's utxo set that can be spent by an address your wallet manages, so you have used this output as input when you created your transaction, but when you wanted to broadcast the transaction, you sent it to a node that didn't have the input in it's utxo set. Basically, i think that waiting a couple of days *MIGHT* fix the problem... Just remember that you probably didn't do anything wrong (i haven't seen this error on the main net yet), and you're working on the testnetwork, so expect people to do weird things on this network  |
|
|
|
Hi, I have started using electrum, seems a good wallet, but still taking some time to understand basic features like where can I see the transaction details?  As here, in history tab, I can only see Transaction Status (Unconfirmed/ Not Verified), Amount and Balance. Where are the rest of the details? Like who send me these bitcoins ( sender's address), transaction hash, no of confirmations on this tx ect. I have not send any BTC to anyone so can't say whether there I can find such details like Receiver's address, Sender's address, Amount Send, Amount refunded, Mining fee etc. So my question is where can I look for such details? In the history tab, right click on a transaction, go to details... Here, you should see a list of inputs and outputs, the number of confirmations, the broadcast date, the amount that was sent, the size, the fee and the tx id. In this details-tab, you could click on "save", and save the raw, signed transaction. The default extention will be .txn, but it's just an ascii file you can open with gedit, nano, vi, notepad, wordpad,... In this file txn, you'll find the hex (between quotes). If you copy this hex, and paste it on my transaction decoder: http://www.mocacinno.com/page/rawdecode you can decode the transaction online, and see all details you ever wanted to know (txid, hash, size, vsize, version, loctime, all details about the inputs, all details about the outputs, sequences,...) |
|
|
|
I have accumulated some Bitcoin and other alts. Most of my holdings are in a single wallet yet I have a few on different platforms and one left on an exchange. I have tried to explain this to my spouse yet there is not a full understanding. If I died I am confident that all of this would not be recovered.
This weeks project is to write an encrypted note detailing where are the holdings are and how to access them. Even with access, the knowledge is not there to be able to convert the holdings to fiat if necessary.
What is your situation ?
Same story with my wife, but i'm lucky to have a daughter that finds crypto currency rather interesting. Started her off with some DOGEcoin (since they were really cheap) on an android wallet... Moved up to a self-funded monero coin (thanks smoothie) which she loves and keeps around her room to show off. Now, i've given her my old ledger HW.1 (bought a new ledger nano S for myself), and i'm paying her in BTC when she does some (very small) chores around the house and when she gets good grades (acutally, i accumulate these earnings untill she has $50, and then i pay her these $50 in one go). Conclusion: when i die, i hope my kid will know what to do with my ledger nano S (it has a pincode my wife knows btw)... |
|
|
|
mocacinno,
How does one 'broadcast the new transaction from a different node'? Does that involve moving the private key to a new wallet?
no, when your wallet creates a transaction (when you send funds), the last (automatic) step is broadcasting the raw, signed transaction to the network. To re-broadcast a transaction, all you need is this signed, raw transaction that was originally created by your wallet... Finding this transaction differs from situation to situation... For example, if the transaction is unconfirmed, and it resides in my node's mempool, you can use this wizard to find the raw, signed transaction: http://www.mocacinno.com/page/getrawJust copy an unconfirmed tx's id in the form, and click on "get the raw transaction", and you'll be shown the raw, signed transaction (if the tx in question is in my mempool!!!) which you can rebroadcast with any of the following online wizards: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_broadcastingor you can push it to my node: http://www.mocacinno.com/page/txpusher |
|
|
|
Wow so many replys and seems like most of you think that compileing is best under linux.
I was following a guide here on bitcointalk and used the good description in the wallet and created the QT under windows 10. It still took about 1,5-2h for setting up all the dependencies etc.
Under linux you could easly completely perform a fresh install, includeing the gui wallet for linux ^^
If you use the gitian method, you do have to realise the gitian descriptors for windows, linux and mac are different... So to build a wallet for both linux, windows and mac, you'll have to start the build process 3 times... However, all initial setup can be re-used for compiling those wallets (in other words, the setup has to be done once, but the build process on this setup has to be repeated for each OS) Is this tutorial still up-to-date? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=42198.msg514312#msg514312Or is there a newer version somewhere? Correct me if i'm wrong, but i should install Gitian on a VM, on Ubuntu? I'd rather point you directly to the github repo of the coin in question https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/contrib/gitian-descriptorshttps://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/tree/master/contrib/gitian-descriptorshttps://github.com/dashpay/dash/tree/master/contrib/gitian-descriptors... There were some better tutorials out there, but last time i just followed the howto directly from the bitcoin github repo and i got everything up and running in a very short time... If it's the first time you do a gitian build, i'd recommend following the tutorial to the letter (including the same virtualbox, debian,... versions). To answer your second question: i would recommand running debian or ubuntu on a VM, like you said Good luck! |
|
|
|
For all the complaints of transactions taking forever to be confirmed, occasionally I'll see my transaction to purchase commodity, X using btc, unconfirmed for ... let's see about 36 hrs, now. And the price of BTC has gone higher.
So actually, it would be better if the transaction DIDN'T eventually get picked up.... so I can start the transaction over at a rate more favorable to me, the btc holder.
So, what are the chances of the transaction being discarded or cancelled or whatever and the btc being returned? Is that even possible in the Bitcoin network?
Thanks
The default node's setting is to drop an unconfirmed tx from the mempool after 72 hours or when the node reboots. When most nodes dropped your tx, it'll look like it never happened, and you can reuse the unspent output again (maybe you have to fix your wallet first, and in case of the core wallet, you need to use zapwallettxs or abandontransaction). |
|
|
|
Thanks, now the seller says that he will resend the btc if the transaction disappears from blockchain. Will it happen in a few days?
I can't understand why the transaction is not picked up when the transaction fee is higher than standard.
I guess it'll be dropped by most nodes in a couple of days, however, there are no guarantees... The transaction wasn't included into a block because of two main reasons: the sender used unconfirmed inputs to create new transactions and he doublespent the inputs. The first problem would have caused a delay, since your transaction wouldn't be included into a block before all previous transactions were included. Also, some nodes might have rejected your transaction if it was received before they received the transaction it depended on. The second problem would cause the miners to prefer the transaction with the highest fee in their blocks, this would cause the inputs for the transaction using the same input to be removed from the UTXO set, voiding the other transaction... This would not cause a delay, but it would technically "cancel" one of the two transactions... If the transaction with an output that could be spent by your address was cancelled, you would never receive the funds in your wallet (it's a bit more complex technically, but this would be the end result for the end user) BTW, I didn't try to do the complete jigsaw puzzle the sender created, but it looks to me that it wasn't the input for your unconfirmed transaction that was double spent, but the input for the transaction whose output was used as input for a second transaction whose output was used as an input for your transaction: 9cda22d989dbfe2b2b5ee358b72a555b50115d1b5ce7dc2b13971f3225f15651 depends on unconfirmed outputs from 715bc1da4487fd61b26bc07884aa2ecd44573b59528ef4d241b5a1f331d7d575 but this tx depends on unconfirmed outputs from 9e08f2313333a1dd6c33ba072fc689b2eb835388235879f32d1035fb496c72ed but the inputs for this transaction were also double spent in tx 4cd62159dfe625b37dd983188877e227538a966b25b9cda955d0f712c74d2c93 AAND 9e08f2313333a1dd6c33ba072fc689b2eb835388235879f32d1035fb496c72ed also depends on unconfirmed outpus from 380ddd66e043689533b2d0dd9ae83263d35fcd10c61c40d9366938c0a31dc3b7 but this tx depends on unconfirmed outputs from 2fa23d204b7c35b7cdfc7f801a39f5c37363d17608d0d7ac6525fbe70db0549d but this tx depends on unconfirmed outputs from 4d29369930444b50476b32acb4496711f15ecfa347b398c65748c86e1716bfa4 but the inputs for this transaction were also double spent in 3 seperate tx's: 65394cdd6d400b9a21893ff39e641cdb93782dcf6b51ec8c6e7e6c5d28b60e91 ecdde1e67aecc2a89f2d7cd889a7947de916ac80dc35ed62645523fa7b4e2c96 a4252c59126a617fe3760af75f0cd429c02a8256d5cb71d7f1d5273920ee606c long story short: since one of the last 3 transactions seems to be confirmed, it seems to be impossible for your transaction to ever be confirmed... Unless i missed something while unraveling the jiggsaw puzzle... Just hope i'm mistaking, or hope the nodes will drop your tx and ask them to resend the funds... And on a personal level, i would avoid someone that created transaction loops and so many double spends... Unless they have a good explanation for doing so... But that's just my personal opinion... |
|
|
|
|
It looks like your seller double spent the inputs for this unconfirmed transaction... If he used a higher fee in the double spend transaction, chances are slim this transaction will ever be confirmed...
Also, the input for this transaction seems to be unconfirmed....
Loads of red flags for this one... I didn't dig to deep, but it looks rather suspicious to me (altough, it might still be OK, in case the seller just did a RBF), it's just a big web of double spending unconfirmed transactions, using unconfirmed outputs as inputs, higher fees, lower fees,...
|
|
|
|
Wow so many replys and seems like most of you think that compileing is best under linux.
I was following a guide here on bitcointalk and used the good description in the wallet and created the QT under windows 10. It still took about 1,5-2h for setting up all the dependencies etc.
Under linux you could easly completely perform a fresh install, includeing the gui wallet for linux ^^
If you use the gitian method, you do have to realise the gitian descriptors for windows, linux and mac are different... So to build a wallet for both linux, windows and mac, you'll have to start the build process 3 times... However, all initial setup can be re-used for compiling those wallets (in other words, the setup has to be done once, but the build process on this setup has to be repeated for each OS) |
|
|
|
I remember seeing a website where you could do multiple stuff such as creating brainwallets (I know Its not recommended), typing your wallet seed and give you the details such as address, private keys, convert PK to public addresses etc... I don't remember the website anymore but I believe It was bip39.org (but not working). The website must be clearly open source.
Is it this one, by any chance? https://iancoleman.github.io/bip39/or https://github.com/bip32/bip32.github.ioThe first link is exactly what I was looking for, thank you. If you had to compare the second with the first, what would you choose in terms of security and stability? I don't want to use something buggy. Im on my phone, so i cant write a long response, but i think you need the second one (bip32) for brain wallet creation. Its unsecure though, but you already know this |
|
|
|
Hey there folks been almost a year I think since I last came on the forum maybe 9 months or so. I came back to see if anyone uses MultiBit HD and has problem sending relatively small amount's (0.0101 BTC and under) to pay for small item's such as a small amount of cloud mining on various platform's or tranferring funds to an alternative site like an exchange etc. Over the past 4 days I think I've made two transactions one for 0.0101 BTC (hence why I set that as the limit) and 0.002 BTC (both amount include the standard 10k satoshi transfer fee). The 0.0101 BTC transaction took about 18 hours to confirm fully, see the TXid below for info: https://blockchain.info/tx-index/b170c91b20e437c51c6c906213a22da4561657698e9ea3b708bff727fbe5d41cand my most recent transaction which I sent yesterday of 0.002 BTC, see the TXid below for info: https://blockchain.info/tx-index/10d3431964bb8cbfd3c0a06761085345ea99c81e72fe76b1a904495a93c4575bThe latter of which I am still waiting to be confirmed and was a transaction I made in order to buy an additional 20GH/s contract from a cloudmining company. I receive funds relatively quickly usually takes anything upto an hour but sending funds is a nightmare. Any help would be greatly appreciated. There is no 10000 satoshi standard fee... The fee depends on the tx size, which in turn depends on the amount of inputs and outputs. 10000 satoshi's can be fine for one tx and way to low for a second tx transferring an equal amount of btc... Both transactions pay 44 sat/byte, so 18+ hours waiting time to get into a block is normal im afraid. I havent used multibit hd for a long time... I know other wallets (at least their more recent versions) have a relative good algorithm for determining the correct fee... Maybe you can upgrade your wallet to avoid this prob in the future? |
|
|
|
|
If gitian descriptors are available, i find this to be the easyest way of compiling wallets for linux (32/64bit) + windows (32/64bit) + mac (in case you have the SDK available)
The complete setup of a gitian VM + the initial setup + documenting the procedure will set you back 3-4 hours, from then on, the compilation time will probably depend on your resources, but it won't take long to compile a wallet...
|
|
|
|
I remember seeing a website where you could do multiple stuff such as creating brainwallets (I know Its not recommended), typing your wallet seed and give you the details such as address, private keys, convert PK to public addresses etc... I don't remember the website anymore but I believe It was bip39.org (but not working). The website must be clearly open source.
Is it this one, by any chance? https://iancoleman.github.io/bip39/or https://github.com/bip32/bip32.github.io |
|
|
|
so say i send btc from wallet(a) to wallet(b) and the change to wallet(c) and the fee is 0.0003 i then send btc from wallet(c) to wallet(d) this fee should cover the transaction from wallet(c) to wallet(d) and from wallet a to b&c? hope you can understand what i mean
It's rather hard to follow your explanation, but i think you are correct... The only thing that seems to be missing in your reasoning is the fact that you have to use the output to address c as input for the transaction between c and d (the one with the very high fee). So, you have an unspent output that can be spent by AddresAAA, you create a transaction paying somebody with adres AddressBBB, the change of this transaction goes to AdresCCC controlled by your wallet. So you have one transaction with one input and two outputs (one to the receiver, one to your change address). By accident, you don't add enough fees... A CPFP is when you use the unspent output to the change address from transaction1 into ANY transaction, it can be to AdresAAA, or to a new adress AdresDDD, or just use it in the next payment you make to a completely different person. The only thing is that transaction2, using the unspent output to AdressCCC (the change address) has to include sufficient fees for both transaction1 and transaction2 btw: if you use my feechecker, and i detect a low a low fee, you are guided trough a wizard to create a cpfp, so you can try it out to learn more, just go to blockchain.info, pick a couple of unconfirmed transactions, put them into my feechecker untill you find a couple with insufficient fees, click on the CPFP wizard at the bottom, decode the raw, unsigned CPFP transaction and see what the wizard did https://www.mocacinno.com/page/feecheckerexactly what i needed, thankyou so much for your help  No problem In hindsight, i just wanted to add one more thing: in this example, it doesn't matter if you're the sender or the receiver... If you're the receiver, your wallet controlles AdresBBB, and you get an output to your address from a transaction with insufficient fees, you can use this unconfirmed output as an input for a new transaction with enough fees to cover both transactions, and it's also called CPFP. A sender can only create a CPFP transaction if there is a change address, a receiver can always create a CPFP. Double spending the unconfirmed inputs can only be done by the sender, same goes for increasing the fee in an opt-in RBF (which is basically a double spend). If you're happy with the answer, you can potentially close the thread now |
|
|
|
so say i send btc from wallet(a) to wallet(b) and the change to wallet(c) and the fee is 0.0003 i then send btc from wallet(c) to wallet(d) this fee should cover the transaction from wallet(c) to wallet(d) and from wallet a to b&c? hope you can understand what i mean
It's rather hard to follow your explanation, but i think you are correct... The only thing that seems to be missing in your reasoning is the fact that you have to use the output to address c as input for the transaction between c and d (the one with the very high fee). So, you have an unspent output that can be spent by AddresAAA, you create a transaction paying somebody with adres AddressBBB, the change of this transaction goes to AdresCCC controlled by your wallet. So you have one transaction with one input and two outputs (one to the receiver, one to your change address). By accident, you don't add enough fees... A CPFP is when you use the unspent output to the change address from transaction1 into ANY transaction, it can be to AdresAAA, or to a new adress AdresDDD, or just use it in the next payment you make to a completely different person. The only thing is that transaction2, using the unspent output to AdressCCC (the change address) has to include sufficient fees for both transaction1 and transaction2 btw: if you use my feechecker, and i detect a low a low fee, you are guided trough a wizard to create a cpfp, so you can try it out to learn more, just go to blockchain.info, pick a couple of unconfirmed transactions, put them into my feechecker untill you find a couple with insufficient fees, click on the CPFP wizard at the bottom, decode the raw, unsigned CPFP transaction and see what the wizard did https://www.mocacinno.com/page/feechecker |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
