CPU mining (and even GPU mining i think) has been removed from most popular mining softwares because you won't be able to mine enough satoshi's to withdraw from a pool.As soon as you fire up a sha256d CPU miner, you're losing more money in hardware and power cost than you'll ever recuperate via mining.
It's sad but true, but since ASIC's appeared on the mining landscape, the network diff skyrocketed so high that it's just not worth mining with a CPU/GPU.

This question gets asked (and answered) several times a week/month.

For example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1783157

Please, read my replys from the link i posted, and close this topic, before dozens of people start the same old discussion all over again...

bottom line: if you want to make a profit mining BTC, you'll need a power cost of less than 7 cents/Kwu, a huge investment, knowledge, a mining room and loads of luck.
If you want to learn how to mine, you should find a CPU/GPU minable altcoin and mine it to learn the basics (without expecting profits) or invest in an older antminer, avalon, spondoolies or geccoscience USB stick (without expecting profits)...
If you have an older sha256d ASIC, and you want to learn how to solo mine, i'd suggest mining on the testnet of either bitcoin, or a sha256d altcoin. The diff on those testnets is usually a lot lower than on the main net, but not low enough to CPU mine tough.

http://mocacinno.com/feecheck.php?txid=432af459f22bd62fabcfad66918bbdcd727d5d9a7c8ea079b074068291a8b1aa

Amph is right, the fee is on the low side.


Links to viabtc's txaccelerator as well as other possible sollutions can be found via the link i posted at the top of my post...

^^ Vixmore is right
I always buy my phones from china... I never pay more than $160 for a phone.
At this moment, i'm using the umi super.. I bought it at around ~€150, it includes a 5.5 inch 2.5D Arc Screen,  Android 6.0 (upgrade to android 7 available), 64bit Octa Core 2.0GHz processor, 13.0MP Camera, 4GB RAM, 32GB ROM,Accelerometer, Compass, Fingerprint Scanner,...

I do buy actual chinese brands, not clones or replicas. If you buy a replica, you have a reasonable chance your country's customs will seize the phones. If you buy a genuine chinese product, the only risk you take is having to pay import duties.

I wish the OP good luck in his sale thread tough... I guess that if you really want a replica of an iphone, the cost will probably be higher than a genuine chinese brand.

It seems like i don't have this tx in my mempool either.
Possible causes:
- it wasn't broadcasted properly by your wallet
- it contained dust outputs
- it was broadcasted +10 days ago
- it's double spending unconfirmed inputs

Mind telling us which wallet you're using?

In your screenshot i don't see any transaction where electrum could have used a change address to be honest...

you received an output of 0.0002BTC that could be spent by *mJZ74bJM2PnHJsx7vTe
then you used this output as an input of a transaction that only created one output, namely to *2r8ih6nXTX6HzW

A change address works like this:
your wallet manages address A
Address A gets an output of 10 BTC from a certain transaction which could now be used as an input when you want to spend these funds
Address A uses this unspent output as an input to create a new transaction, sending 1 BTC to address B for goods or services and 8.99 BTC to change address C.
If you create a transaction whose output consists of the complete input (minus the fees) there is no need for a change address.

To tell you the truth, i haven't used blockchain.info as a serious wallet for a very, very long time, so i couldn't give you a good answer to your question... I'd suggest you contact blockchain.info's support, or read their FAQ... I'm pretty sure they'll be able to point you into the right direction.

However, eventough i dislike web wallets, i do think you have a very big chance that the funds will just return to your blockchain.info's balance, since this is a very big wallet provider, so they've probably been confronted with this problem before...

well... it's all odds and averages. Nobody can tell you how long you'll have to wait, the only thing i can say is that there is a really big chance you'll have to wait at very least 240 minutes, probably longer.
There is a small chance your transaction will be confirmed a lot sooner, but i wouldn't bet on it.

If the transaction isn't confirmed in the next couple of days, the nodes will start dropping it from their mempool. In the end, it'll be like the transaction never happened...
You might need to repair your wallet in order for it to re-add the outputs back to your balance, and if you're running bitcoin core, you need to start the wallet with the zapwallettxes option, or you need to enter the abondontransaction command in the debug window... If you're not using bitcoin core, you just need to wait (and maybe repair your wallet) in order to see your balance again.

But, whatever happens, your transaction will either confirm, or you will be able to spend those outputs... As long as the transaction isn't confirmed, you are still in controll of the funds (unless you're using web wallets, in this case, you weren't in controll of your own funds to begin with)

Yes, there are 3 options, but 2 of them are very technical, and the one that is easy to do actually needs to be enabled BEFORE the transaction is initially generated...
Those are the 3 options i said you could ignore because they would confuse new users: opt-in RBF, CPFP and double spending the unconfirmed inputs.

In theory, you're not really leaving more fee in your current transaction, you're either replacing the transaction by an allmost identical transaction leaving more fee, or you're using the outputs of the stuck transaction in a new transaction that has sufficient fees to cover both the stuck transaction and the new one... But like i said: doing a CPFP or double spend is pretty technical.

I just realised why the tx accellerator might fail:
only the very first transaction is using confirmed inputs:

81d086f18f7d11c2337d76412a86498ee1637f9cc6db698e841d1e854528ca91

All other transactions depend on this one!

So, you should try to push this transaction to viabtc's next block... I tried, but apparently they received to many requests this hour... You should try again next hour.

So, in short, you should start by making sure 81d086f18f7d11c2337d76412a86498ee1637f9cc6db698e841d1e854528ca91 is broadcasted to viabtc, then accellerate it... Then you should make sure ed0cc620f66855eb214b12513b250898f904936f16120f54bb7ca686eb542fd7 is broadcasted to viabtc + accelerated
Then, in this order: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Don't chance the order, since each transaction depends on the outputs of the transaction above... If you skip broadcasting/accelerating one of them, viabtc might reject the transaction since it uses inputs that are not in his UTXO set

That should have been correct, but it seems the transaction wasn't propagated to viabtc, or viabtc removed it from their mempool (this can happend because of the huge backlog)... You could try to push the raw transaction to a couple of nodes.

How to do this?
1) get the raw transaction by pasting the tx id here: http://www.mocacinno.com/page/getraw and submitting
2) copy the raw transaction you get
3) broadcast it to a couple of nodes that have a webinterface for broadcasting transactions (https://www.google.com/search?num=100&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=online+broadcast+bitcoin+transaction&oq=online+broadcast+bitcoin+transaction )

IF you're lucky, the signed transaction will end up in viabtc's node mempool. When this happens, you can use their tool to accelerate your transaction.

I realise this isn't an easy thing to do, i suppose the problem is the huge unconfirmed transaction backlog. There are so many unconfirmed transactions the mempool from the nodes gets filled up, and they start dropping transactions

http://mocacinno.com/feecheck.php?txid=cf4c28d7b4e1238b80e465eb682942d22daee5532087ba2147d6aabb4b099f07
http://mocacinno.com/feecheck.php?txid=daddb276ebea9afa3c468cf3c10a93dfe3bddf5f0f32168c6295623f03bd8f88
http://mocacinno.com/feecheck.php?txid=cffe93ea3a5dbd4259a550ca10c146b0d3da152624263dec874e530c5b10f1f0
http://mocacinno.com/feecheck.php?txid=8eceae20e4e25d7eb0bd2461f74c996687ecd2f277237ab74449c16b810db952
http://mocacinno.com/feecheck.php?txid=b2238c6288188b066beb78b169474b687c7cfbc71a1e05f319698b33da326a56
http://mocacinno.com/feecheck.php?txid=6e6d06397b5ef96114b9253c5e18f8803efb79f035eca1414e8d2d619aa8a0ab
http://mocacinno.com/feecheck.php?txid=c7976cf4d0e9f4abce000bf3b5ec171105b30f7c3a27159c76932a3821294791
http://mocacinno.com/feecheck.php?txid=ed0cc620f66855eb214b12513b250898f904936f16120f54bb7ca686eb542fd7
http://mocacinno.com/feecheck.php?txid=81d086f18f7d11c2337d76412a86498ee1637f9cc6db698e841d1e854528ca91

i'm sorry to inform you, but all of them are using a fee that is lower than the currently recommanded fee...

Next to this, the unconfirmed output to the change address was always used as an input for the next transaction, so only the very first transaction uses confirmed inputs, all others cannot be confirmed before the transaction it depends on is confirmed (all transactions can theoretically be confirmed in the same block, but a depending tx can never be confirmed in an older block than the tx it depends on)


Possible sollutions can be found on the links i posted...

you created a transaction, signed and broadcasted it (you wallet probably did this for you, so this might have happened automatically).
The raw, signed transaction you pushed to the network was this one:
As you can clearly see by the length of this raw transaction, it was really big... In fact, it was 764 bytes.

Since a miner working on a block can only pick transactions untill the 1 Mb block he is currently working on is full, he would need a rather large fee in order to place those 764 bytes in the block he's working on.

You payed a fee of 0.000804 BTC for a 764 bytes transaction. That's ~105 satoshi's/byte.

At the time of writing, you'd need to add 163 satoshi's/byte to have a 95% chance of getting into the next 3 blocks (~30min waiting time). Since you only payed 105 sat/byte, chances are small your transaction will be included in the next 24 blocks (~240 minutes).

Remember, a miner can pick ANY transaction he/she wants to fill up the block he/she is currently working on. So even a 1 satoshi/byte transaction *MIGHT* end up in the very next block... Altough the chances of this happening are really small.

This is what happens if you use the viabtc txaccellerator recommended both on my site, and by the users that posted before me... if you use their accellerator, you ask them to please add your transaction to the block they're working on, eventough they could make more money by adding a transaction with a higher fee/byte. This is not a magic tool, it's just a mining pool doing this out of kindness (or because they have a political agenda)...

Since you said you didn't have a clue what my site said, i wouldn't bother reading the RBF/CPFP/double spending sections of my site, they would only confuse a new user... The other options, however, should not be confusing to anybody...

http://mocacinno.com/feecheck.php?txid=ab7ae1156730db3325b80dfc16d627d6e8874892801683b0d84a11cb682effac

above link details the "problem" with this transaction, as well as the possible sollutions

So, the output of the transaction will be spendable by you? In other words: are you the receiver?
If you're the sender, you could just double spend the inputs from transaction edeef69cb97942d490e2961a54f689d55392d1d5a0606f25fa6abce26f662c80 to create a new transaction, if you're the receiver you should get your hands on the raw, signed transaction, or you could contact the sender... I've checked, and the signed transaction wasn't in my mempool either, so i can't really help you...

Could you also tell us which wallet software you're using?

Did you create tx with opt in rbf, broadcast and afterwards increase the fee?
In this case, it's possible you're looking at the wrong txid... You should be looking at the txid of the tx with the higher fee.

A second thing that could have happened is that the tx wasn't broadcasted, or that is was rejected by most nodes (insufficient fees or dust outputs for example)

I did't have your txid in my mempool either.
If you want to check other tx's, you can do so here: http://www.mocacinno.com/page/feechecker

My node keeps unconfirmed tx's for 10 days before it removes them from my mempool, and it has a larger than default max memory setting, thus it should be holding more tx's than a "default" node. In other words: if you have other unconfirmed tx's, and they're not in my node's mempool, i can pretty much guarantee they won't be in most of the node's mempools (only in the mempools of nodes that have even more lenient configuration settings)

How many inputs were used to create the transaction, and how many outputs were generated?

If you have no idear, you can use option 3 on my website http://www.mocacinno.com/page/feeestimate to calculate if the fee is appropriate based on a list of addresses managed by your wallet and the amount of BTC you wish to send.

0.0032BTC (i guess you made a typo in the original post, as 0.003 =~ 30% of 0.01) can range from waay to much to not enough, the fee is based on the transaction size, not the amount of BTC that is transferred. The size is based on the amount of inputs and outputs, not their monetary value... This makes it impossible for us to tell you if the fee is excessive based on your OP

Altough i agree that nobody deserves to be scammed, you should be carefull posting private info on a public forum...

If it turns out the person you mentioned in the previous post lost his account due to hacking or something, and it was the hacker that scammed you, the original owner might take legal action agains you for doxxing him (unless you got his info from a public page)

That is correct.
I've seen many good answers to your question, but this is the mathematical answer:

you have 1 input of 5 BTC that can be spend by an address controlled by your wallet, and you want to pay a little less than 1 BTC to 5 addresses (since you'll need to pay a fee, so you cannot send exactly 5 BTC to those addresses, since there would be no room for the fee).

tx size =~ nr of inputs*147 + nr of outputs*34 + 10 + number of inputs
optimal fee according to my node at the time of writing: 149 sat/byte

option 1 => make 5 transactions
tx 1 => input of 5 BTC, output of 1 BTC to the receiver + 4-fee BTC to the change address
tx 1 size (approx) => (1 x 147) + (2 x 34) + 10 + 1 = 226 (estimation)
tx 1 fee  => 226 byte * 149 sat/byte = 33674 sat = 0.00033674 BTC

tx 2 => input of 3.99966326 BTC, output of 1 BTC to the receiver + 2.99966326-fee BTC to change address
tx 2 size (approx) => (1 x 147) + (2 x 34) + 10 + 1 = 226 (estimation)
tx 2 fee  => 226 byte * 149 sat/byte = 33674 sat = 0.00033674 BTC

tx 3 => input of 2.99932652 BTC, output of 1 BTC to the receiver + 1.99932652-fee BTC to change address
tx 3 size (approx) => (1 x 147) + (2 x 34) + 10 + 1 = 226 (estimation)
tx 3 fee  => 226 byte * 149 sat/byte = 33674 sat = 0.00033674 BTC

tx 4 => input of 1.99898978 BTC, output of 1 BTC to the receiver + 0.99898978-fee BTC to change address
tx 4 size (approx) => (1 x 147) + (2 x 34) + 10 + 1 = 226 (estimation)
tx 4 fee  => 226 byte * 149 sat/byte = 33674 sat = 0.00033674 BTC

tx 5 => input of 0.99898978 BTC, output of 0.99898978-fee to the receiver
tx 5 size (approx) => (1 x 147) + (1 x 34) + 10 + 1 = 192 (estimation)
tx 5 fee  => 192 byte * 149 sat/byte = 28608 sat = 0.00028608 BTC

Total fee using option 1 = 0.0016334 BTC

option 2 => make 1 transactions

tx 1 => input of 5 BTC, 4 * output of 1 BTC to the receiver + 1 * output of 1 BTC - fee to the receiver
tx 1 size (approx) => (1 x 147) + (5 x 34) + 10 + 1 = 328 (estimation)
tx 1 fee  => 328 byte * 149 sat/byte = 48872 sat = 0.00048872 BTC

Total fee using option 2 = 0.00048872 BTC

Conclusion => your fee will be a factor +3 times higher if you decide to split up your payments into 5 transactions, compared to pay 5 people in one single transaction

If you want to learn and play with possible fee scenario's, you can use my site to simulate optimal fee settings in different scenario's:
http://www.mocacinno.com/page/feeestimate

It looks like you're mixing up two things:
blockchain.info = wallet provider (amongst a couple of other things) = private company NOT owning the blockchain technology
the blockchain = technology of a decentral ledger, on which bitcoin has been built

The blockchain is pretty safe, sure there might have been some startup issues, but nowadays it looks like the technology is solid. Blockchain.info is a private company, using loads of different technology and languages to provide an online wallet. It wouldn't supprise me if they got hacked sooner or later...

The OP and all other posters were talking about the blockchain technology, not the wallet

Quoted
And verified