Consensus rules allow creating an output worth less than the dust limit and you are right. I said that's not possible because such transaction would be non-standard and would be rejected by nodes.

Thanks for your correction. I edited my previous post, so that it's more accurate.

If you run a prune node, you can check only your own transactions and if you import a new address, you have to redownload the blockchain.
If the purpose is to check any transaction without relying on third parties, a prune node wouldn't be helpful and you would have to run a full node.

Zero value transfer? Do you mean a transaction sending 0 BTC? That's not possible at all.

You can't make a bitcoin transaction creating outputs worth less than the dust limit.
The dust limit is 546 satoshi for legacy addresses and 294 satoshi for native segwit addresses.

Edit:
A transaction creating an output worth less than the dust limit is valid, but that's not standard and would be rejected by nodes.
Thanks BlackHatCoiner for the correction.

As I ready said by others, there are many block explorers that can be used to check if a transaction is valid.

Just take note that being valid is not enough and you should never accept an unconfirmed transaction. It's possible that a transaction is now valid now but unconfirmed and becomes invalid after a while.

Many nodes have already dropped OP's transaction from their mempool.
At the time I am writing this post, according to mempool.space, the purging fee rate is 15 sat/vbyte. This means that any transaction with the fee rate of less than 15 sat/vbyte is purged from mempool of any node with default mempool size.

OP's transaction has not been flagged as RBF which means that's not supported by ViaWallet and there shouldn't be any option to increase the fee in the wallet.

Of course, as I said in my previous post, there are many nodes that have dropped OP's transaction from their mempool and should accept a new transaction with the same inputs. 

The fee rate used for your transaction is below the purging fee rate for any node with default mempool size. Therefore, there are many nodes that don't have your transaction in their mempool now.

Import your wallet to electrum. There's a change you don't see your unconfirmed transaction and you can make a new one.
If you see your transaction in electrum, try connecting to different servers until you find a one that doesn't have your transaction. Once you connect to a node that doesn't have your transaction, your transaction status will change to local and you can remove it from your wallet using right-click menu and then make a new one.

Download electrum only from its official website.

You are right.

I don't know.
I think any wallet that supports coin control should allow spending unconfirmed coins and that's why in my previous post I said your statement is true. 

My point was that if you can spend unconfirmed coins, you can do CPFP manually without coin control.

The ID of the transaction OP is talking about has been already posted in this thread and you could check that to see if he/she is right.
What caused the transaction fee to be that high has been also explained, but unfortunately you don't read the replies.

The block size can be bigger than 1 MB. The maximum limit is 1 vMB or 4 million weight units.


With using segwit addresses, you decrease the virtual size of the transaction and the weight units.
Take note that with using segwit addresses instead of legacy addresses, your transaction size wouldn't change significantly and it's even possible that you increase the transaction size.

Transaction fee doesn't depend on the amount you send. So it's not a percentage of the amount.
The transaction OP is talking about includes 53 multi-signature inputs and that's why the fee was that high.


You could know more details about the transaction, if you had read previous posts before making a new reply.

Please read previous posts before making a new reply.


As you said, that chart is displaying the average transaction fee.
Depending on number of inputs and outputs and addresses types, the total fee required to be paid for a transaction can be different.

That's simple.
Make a transaction sending all your coins to your own address when fees are low.

Take note that the more inputs/outputs your transaction includes, the more fee you have to pay.
Assume that you have received bitcoin in 50 different transactions. Now you have 50 UTXOs and if you want to spend your fund, your transaction would include 50 inputs.
If you make a transaction sending all these 50 inputs to your own address when the fees are low, you can decrease number of your UTXOs to 1 with a low cost.

The transaction I linked to above could be made with around 4.5 dollars worth of bitcoin around 40 days ago.
If the sender had consolidated the inputs in that time, he/she wouldn't have to pay fee for a transaction including 53 inputs today.

I think the topic created by LoyceV should be very helpful to you.
[Nov 2023] Fees are high, wait for opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs


The other mistake made by the sender was that he/she didn't use coin control.
Although the sender hadn't consolidated the inputs before, the transaction could be made with much lower fee. The sender didn't have to use all those 53 coins and the transaction could be made using less inputs.

With a reusing an address, you may harm your privacy and that's why your wallet generated a new address for you. Many wallets do the same thing.


You will receive the fund.
Take note that your wallet contains numerous addresses. They are all backed up by your seed phrase and they are all owned by you.

Both.
The sender paid high fee due to his/her own mistake and the big number of inputs.


OP is probably talking about the following transaction.
4fd93ab96fcdf44c08b2ff64501279341dd052fbb61e515c904e6b7df063c87d

The transaction includes 53 inputs and all of them are multi-sig.


Anyone who made this transaction could pay much lower fee if he/she had consolidated the inputs before.
The second mistake made by the sender is that he/she didn't use coin control. The transaction includes 2 outputs and one of them is probably the change. The sender could make the transaction with less inputs.

As mentioned above by Charles-Tim, you should avoid the website in question. That's a scam.
If you have unconfirmed transaction, that's due to the low fee and nothing else.


Are you the sender or the receiver?
How much is the fee used for your transaction?

If you are the sender and you are in a hurry, you can bump the fee.
If you are the receiver and you in a hurry, you can do CPFP.

This is true, but just to be more accurate:
To be able to do CPFP manually, what matters is your (non-custodial) wallet allowing to spend unconfirmed outputs.

In the case the wallet allows you to spend unconfirmed outputs, you can create a CPFP tranaction manually by spending the total balance even if the wallet doesn't support coin-control.

There are 95 printable ASCII characters.

(whitespace is also included)


All 95 printable ASCII characters can be used for a passphrase.

Here is a screenshot taken from electrum.

Yes.

Your transaction should have unconfirmed parent(s) and that's why it hasn't been confirmed yet.

The fee rate you should set for your CPFP transaction depends on the fee already paid for your unconfirmed transaction and its unconfirmed parent(s) and their (virtual) size.

To add to nc50lc's reply:

Electrum uses a different derivation path when generating the master public key from the seed phrase for multi-sig wallets.
This means that although the seed phrases you have for your multi-signature wallet are the same as your standard wallets, the master public keys would be different.



If the seed phrases have been generated by electrum, no. Electrum uses a fixed derivation path and doesn't allow you to change that.
If they are BIP39, yes. You can change the derivation path a generate a completely different wallet.