Hi
I have a transaction that has been stuck for a couple of weeks because of a low fee. The transaction doesn't have change so I can't use CPFP and since it was built using Wasabi it's not tagged as an RBF so I can't replace the fee and broadcast it using another wallet or service. I've read somewhere that a transaction that stays in a mempool for 3 days gets ejected but it looks like my transaction is broadcasted regularly. I've removed Transactions.dat from Wasabi's Data Folder to have the coins appear back in my wallet and tried double spending them with a higher fee, to myself and to the original address. I tried it with Wasabi, Electrum and broadcasting through blockchain.com, nothing works and I get either an error of double spending or conflict, which was somehow expected.
Any idea on how I can unstuck it?
Thanks
The default setting on the reference client is 2 weeks not 3 days (at least, it's 2 weeks in the version i'm running, which is not 0.21.0, but still i'm running a relatively recent version)... So, if you stop rebroadcasting, most (but not all) nodes should have dropped your transaction after 2 weeks... Other than that, DaveF already gave your other options: pay a big mining pool (don't entertain offers from newbies that promise to "mine" your transaction) or talk the receiver trough a CPFP. |
|
|
|
--snip--
0.0452 mBTC is not too low for now, that will amounts to 0.0000452 BTC, but it may take a long time before your transaction will be included in a block, but it will eventually be included
--snip--
4520 satoshi's MIGHT be enough for now, it's POSSIBLE the transaction will eventually be included in a block... But without knowing the transaction size, it's impossible to tell... At this moment, you need a fee of ~50 sat/byte to get into the next couple of blocks. If the OP's using a segwit wallet and created a 1 input, 2 output tx, the tx size will be ~200 bytes. This would result in a 4520 sat/200 bytes =~ 22 sat/bytes. Not enough right now, but odds are pretty good that it'll be included in a block before it's pruned from the mempool. If the OP's using a legacy wallet to spend funds he got from a faucet (or some other micropayment website) and he creates a transaction with 16 inputs and 2 outputs, the transaction size would be ~4500 bytes, resulting in a 1 sat/byte fee, and the odds of such a tx ending in a block before it's pruned are not that good.... A tx with 1 input, 1 output from a segwit wallet is ~140 bytes, resulting in a ~30 sat/byte fee... So even in the best case scenario, a 4520 sat fee is not enough right now, unless you're willing to wait. In other words: the fee alone tells you nothing... You need to now the size before you can draw any conclusion at all... That being said: the tip to make sure the RBF flag is set is a good one... I'd defenately recommand it aswell  |
|
|
|
well... there is no way of telling you which fee to use... What we CAN do is tell you what a fee is, and how it works, so you can chose a fee for yourself... A fee is not based on the value you transmit. It is not payed to the wallet creator.... A fee is an incentive for the miner to add your transaction to the block he/she is trying to solve. The blocksize is limited to 1Mb (excluding the witness data), so a miner has to chose which unconfirmed transactions he/she puts in the block he/she is trying to solve. Since the fee can be added to the coinbase transaction (the transaction paying the miner), a miner has a financial motive to add the unconfirmed transactions with the highest fee/byte of transaction data. So, your fee depends on the SIZE of your transaction, NOT it's value AND the fee (in sat/vbyte) also strongly depends on the other unconfirmed transactions in the mempool. The SIZE of your transaction depends on the AMOUNT of inputs, the AMOUNT of outputs, the type of your wallet (legacy, segwit, native segwit,...) and in some lesser extend it also depends on the type of address you're trying to fund. It's perfectly possible to transfer an equivalent of $100.000.000 in FIAT value with a smaller fee than transfering $10 in FIAT value IF the first transaction is using less unspent outputs as an input and/or creates less unspent outputs as an output OR if the first transaction is made using a segwit wallet vs a non-segwit wallet. Now... The size of your transaction can be found using electrum... The optimal feerate can be found on sites like https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,24h,weight ... using this combined information should give you the opportunity of picking a good fee.... OR... You can just use electrum's wizard... It's quite good... If none of what i said made sense to you, i'd stick with using the slider in electrum's gui |
|
|
|
yeah, there are lenders here that are honest... Just look at their trust feedback before you deal with anybody. As for the rates: i don't know why they are higher, but in general they are (at least, from what i've seen). The collateral... well, VOD has written a nice piece about that: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577765.msg6311902#msg6311902Last but not least: yes, there are trustworthy escrows on the forum... Same rule applies as with the lenders: look at their trust feedback. I'm not active in the loan community tough, so i can't answer to specific questions... I have no experience with Defi or other loan platforms, and the last time i took or gave a loan was at least 3-4 years ago... |
|
|
|
|
Intrest rates for crypto loans are usually higher than the rates you'd get when you talk to your bank (at least, that's what i've seen most of the times i read a thread in the loan section). Also, most lenders (if not all) require valid collateral.
As for the rest of your questions: depends on the lender i guess.
Maybe you'll find somebody who is willing to lend you $10.000 in BTC and agrees if you repay $11.000 in BTC at the exchange rate at that point in time. I don't know if a lot of lenders would be up to this tough, exchange rates fluctuate a lot nowadays, so an agreement like this could end up in a big (ugly) discussion about which exchange rate and which exact point in time will be used... I would consider such a loan a hidden form of gambling.
The bottom line for you is: if you need a loan, and you want to get it here, prepare to give a lot of valid collateral and pay above-market intrest rates... If you insist on coupling the loan to the USD value, you're gambling, and most lenders will probably not like this.
|
|
|
|
--snip--
okay i understand about forking a little bit now thanks, but how did they even get permission to upgrade the code, how do they have access to the code edit, did satoshi trust someone to look after bitcoin? Its a good thing that btc has a 1mb blocksize which keeps it original and the 21000000 cap
I can't really remember all the history behind the github repo, but it doesn't even matter all that much... It's open source code, you're free to write your own client based on the reference client, or you can fork electrum and create a new wallet using electrum's codebase. Who gave who permission isn't really important. What i did want to correct: blocksize has nothing to do with the 21M supply... We could theoretically have 1Tb blocks and still only have ~21.000.000 BTC in circulation in a couple hundred years. |
|
|
|
yes bitcoin is a true genius idea but the next step is to annonymize the blockchain. Im waiting for satoshi to create a new anonymous blockchain from scratch if he or she is up for it
I guess you'll have to wait for a long, long time... IIRC, he dissapeared about 10 years ago and nobody has heared from him ever since... I doubt he'll see your message and think "hey, this guy is right... I'll just re-appear after 10 years to make a new currency". As for your theory that changes or forks mean a failed coin: i can't say i agree... Changes are made to fix bugs, to add new features, to adapt to changing conditions, to increase troughput, to decrease load... Fixing something (even if it means forking) is not equal to failing. The reference clients contains tens of thousands of lines of code, it's allmost impossible to write such a piece of software without any bugs while anticipating everything that could happen in the future and already including those features in your software. Patches and changes are a natural part of a development cycle... I doubt you'll find a single piece of big, popular software that has been around for a long time but never received a patch. My wife is driving a Toyota Yaris that i bought about ~8 ish years ago... If i compare my car to the new Yaris, i can see the new model has a lot of new features... Some of them are safety related, some comfort related, some environment related... This does not mean my old Yaris was a failure: at the time i bought said car, it was an "average" car with "average" state-of-the-art features. Just because somebody found new safety features, or people's taste changed so they had to adapt the looks of the car, or the environmental rules changed didn't make my old car "bad".... |
|
|
|
|
It's an interesting list you have there, but the only measure that is actually effective is:
"store your crypto offline".
Either buy a hardware wallet (they start at ~$50), learn how to properly generate a paper wallet or setup an airgapped setup (can be achieved without using dedicated hardware by booting from a live CD).
If you want any security, stay away from online wallets....
If you want a reasonable amount of security, follow your advices about antivirus, animalware, 2FA, regular updates, firewalling, smart wallet choices....
If you want good security, use a hardware wallet, paper wallet or airgapped setup...
|
|
|
|
|
I bought a laptop for about ~2 BTC several years ago... A top of the line one, but yeah... It would have been enough to buy a small house in a lot of country's right now.
|
|
|
|
Well... I see you're stilling calling it "freshly minted coins"... Eventough i tought we established that this was not the case... You even partially agreed to this when you said: --snip--
Thank you for pointing out , We will look for better wordings. maybe "new set of coins" ?
any suggestions ?
But now it seems you're once again saying that these coins were actually coinbase rewards (freshly minted coins) after i actually gave proof that the one trustworthy person who tried your service and was completely open when sharing tx-id's only received 0,000000000000000019% "freshly minted coins" when looking at the 5000 closest "parent" transactions... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5314083.msg56313687#msg56313687Good luck with finding a campaign manager tough. |
|
|
|
|
I don't have the mobile version on my phone anymore, so i can't try it out for myself, but i'm wondering if you're on the correct tab inside electrum mobile.
When you create a transaction you should not end up creating an invoice... But i'm going to step out of this thread so people that do have the mobile version installed could give you some pointers.
|
|
|
|
Well i make invoice for 2 addresses:
1M2YPQ4kSBfbDmuSNte88JMpjZXCmGfJep
And tried this:
bc1qsz45xhr97hwprsczylerpl6z52cxa957arqa0t
2 invoices but
I need only one transaction..
Wait... One step back here... You were the one creating invoices? Did you give the address to the person you were invoicing? https://blockstream.info/address/bc1qsz45xhr97hwprsczylerpl6z52cxa957arqa0thttps://blockstream.info/address/1M2YPQ4kSBfbDmuSNte88JMpjZXCmGfJepThe legacy address (1M2YPQ4kSBfbDmuSNte88JMpjZXCmGfJep) seems to have been used about a year ago... Are you sure it's yours? Neither of the addresses were funded recently, it seems there are no unconfirmed transaction funding either of these addresses in the mempool. So, you created a invoice, can you walk me trough what you did next? By the way: you don't need to create invoices to receive funds... An invoice is a concept that only exists inside your wallet... All you need to do to receive funds is generate an address and give it to the sender. |
|
|
|
|
The stats you're looking at are probably not for the same algorithm/coin...
Some algorithms (like sha256d or scrypt) require an ASIC. If you'd mine those with a GPU you'd earn nothing (since the difficulty for coins using sha256d or scrypt has been pushed sky-high by people running ASICs). Other algorithms don't have ASIC's, those ones can probably be mined using a GPU.
It's also possible you're looking at a page from 2010 and comparing it with a page written in 2020... Years ago, bitcoin was only mined using a CPU, if you were one of the first GPU miners your hashrate would have been really good compared to the CPU miners back then, but it would be neglectible compared to an ASIC's hashrate right now.
Don't compare apples with oranges...
|
|
|
|
The wallet itself show less informations about sending process.. only invoice data and status unpaid.. i tried ETA fee then mampool fee.. it still not sent
If you'd share the address that was shown to you (the address you wanted to fund) we might be able to work backwards from there... Do realise that sharing an address like this might hurt your privacy (not your security, only your privacy). |
|
|
|
|
With the info you provided, it's impossible to tell what's going wrong.
If i had to guess, i'd say the chances are reasonably high you're not using a sufficiently high feerate.
If you want to find out if this guess is correct, you'll need to provide a lot more details: which feerate are you using, what's the txid (posting txid's and addresses decreases your privacy, but not your wallet security), which payment provider is issuing an invoice,...
Paying an invoice shouldn't be that hard. If you're spending outputs from confirmed transactions, using a decent fee and there's nothing wrong with your connection, the average waiting time *could* be as low as ~5 minutes.
|
|
|
|
thx for all your answers. So Electrum does not automatically saves my "send" label to the change address. Why is that? Out of my sight every label "needs" to be named by the ones who knows of this address. So wouldnt it be better if electrum saves automatically the sending/transaction label to the change? Well, on a technical level there is no "need". Labels are for your accounting purposes only, it's completely irrelevant (and unknown) for the rest of the network. Personally, i'd rather not have my labels saved on any external server, eventough the encryption seems good (at first sight). It's nobody's business if i created an address to receive payments from Bob, or if i used transaction with txid "x" to pay Alice for a certain service. If those labels are important to me, it's up to me to backup them regularly. |
|
|
|
--snip--
I don't think it's a good idea to keep labels, addresses and transaction on some remote server even if it's encrypted, but it may be better if you run your own server.
--snip--
That would be a fun project idear: a personal electrum label synchronisation server... Run a little deamon on your vps to synchronise your labels on all your machines... I mean, we already have projects that let you run your own electrum node, so running your own label synchronisation server seems like a reasonable next step privacy-wise. I guess it wouldn't be to hard to do either (eventough i wouldn't call it a simple project): Pick trough electrum's sourcecode and see how the external synchronisation protocol works, then build a little daemon that does the same as the "real" synchronisation server. The downside would be that the user would have to run a modified version of electrum, since his/her own synchronisation server would have to be hard-coded into electrum's binary instead of the current synchronisation server. Or maybe editing the hosts-file on the user's machine would be sufficient if we don't run into issues with invalid certificates (add a record that points the current synchronisation server to your vps's ip). Something to try out on a rainy day |
|
|
|
--snip--
Do you have contact info of the owner?? Someone mentioned I can PM him?
He already answered in this very thread... Click on his username, then click on "Send this member a personal message." and you'll end up on this page: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1177176I would only use the PM function to point him towards this thread... And since he already answered in this very thread, he is aware of it's existance. I would keep most communication public (except if he asks personal information). By keeping things public, you increase the pressure to unlock your account, as soon as you go private there is no more "bad publicity" for them, so their incentive to help you out soon decreases dramatically. |
|
|
|
After three emails asking me ONLY for my selfie, they now requested stupid unnecessary documents. I swear these people are the worst of the worst. Why couldn’t they request everything in one email. Damn. I send everything to them right away so let’s see what happens. Mind you not I’ve been talking to four different employees all of them feeding me BS after BS.
Here’s copy of text from email:
Hello,
To proceed with the verification procedure, the security department requests the following information:
1) Screenshots of your incoming transactions where we can see the hash, amount and the name of the sending service (another wallet, exchange and so on);
2) Photo of your identification document of the owner of the account: an international ID or a driver’s license (a photo of both sides).
3) Bank statement or utility bill where we can see your name and resident address. Information should be in English;
4) A photo of the owner of the account in front of the image “Attention” (attached below) on your computer monitor (if you use a web version of Freewallet) or near your mobile device with the app open so that we were able to see your user ID.
Once we receive all the required information, we will forward it to our security department for verification.
If you read my previous post, you'll see that things might even get worse... They asked 4 of their 6 possible options... Next to these 4 things, they also give themselfs the freedom to make you proof the origin of your funds, and they're judge, jury and executioner as to wether or not your explanation is sufficient... And they also gave themselfs the freedom to sniffle around in your ACTIVE social media accounts. By the way: their TOS says the information you give them has to be in english, or you'll have to pay for a notarised copy. Like i said: they're judge, jury and executioner... Not a pleasant feeling to have your lifesavings taken hostage i'm afraid... There are only 2 things you can do: bend over backwards and hope you've made enough noise to convince them to access funds that belong to you, or search a good lawyer. Oh, you can also warn others, but that's what you've been doing. As soon as you regain access to your funds: make sure you empty your wallet with them and walk away... Don't get suckered into thinking "I already passed their KYC, might aswell keep on using them". If this ordeal proves anything, it should be you should never trust a non-custodial wallet, especially not one that has massive red trust and negative reviews all over the place. (btw, this is not legal advice... Do what you want with your money... I'm just saying what i would do if i was faced with the same situation you are) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
