Yes, of course it is node specific. But from the pragmatic point of view it is most important to know which unconfirmed TA
  W I L L   be included into the blockchain. I'm afraid this is undefined. :-/ There are still dozends of 0-fee TAs included a day, but e.g. my
two TAs were deleted/forgotten. I'm even not sure whether also non-0-fee TAs were/are forgotten which were/are totally valid.
At least it would be very helpful to have a probability whether a given TA will be included into the blockchain. http://bitcoinfees.21.co/ seems to be of no help to this last question, isn't it?

Regards
achim

I stumpled already over this URL https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ when I googled for infos on tuesday in the internet (and still wonder what its heading "since 1759" means).
Do you know a URL where I can watch the current size (say in MB) of total unconfirmed transactions waiting  for inclusion into the blockchain (and perhaps their number)?

Regards
achim

Still an appendix to your last please/question: Look at the
URL  https://blockchain.info/tx/b92e377073088d714d0850d49116835f1ae8cdb9acb4be229faaeecde8fea5cc

Of course this is the finally accepted new TA which is now in the blockchain. The TA which was hanging for 48 hours (listed in blockchain.info's pool as unconfirmed transaction), had exactly the same structure. Only one txout-address was different and its value was not 9.9999 BTC, but exactly 5 BTC (and 130 BTC were reused and not 125 BTC by the same txin-address).

I hope this helps a bit.

Sorry, too late. I have no copy of the raw transaction anymore -- I remember the default 1 txin, 2 txout script and about 257 bytes from my memory/brain when looking at the above mentioned URL. There I also clicked the button for show/hide-script ). Immediately after I recognized the deletion of the two TAs in the unconfirmed TA-pool listed on blockchain.info (see the above URL), I deleted my current wallet and the last backup wallet and restarted my bitcoin-qt client with a backup wallet from January 2016. From this I send a new transaction which surprisingly was put into the next new block. From my last experiment of yesterday,  I have set my default fee to 0.0001 BTC and will reuse this now as my private standard because miners seems no longer to put standard 0-fee transactions (preciser only with very low probability -- I checked for the number of the incorporated 0-fee transactions in the last 24 hours in the blockchain -- even blockchain.info now calculates the median expectation time ONLY for TAs with non-zero fee in their public chart!).

My bitcoin-qt client (version 0.8.6.0 -- unpatched -- the original, has a standard of 0-fee which you may/can change in the configuration menu/popup)

Regards,
achim

Thanks for your thoughts, Danny.


0) I don't need to delete the TAs from wallet(-history), but from unconfirmed-TA-bitcoin-network-(nodes-)pool ! (I have older usable back-up wallets).

1) Always I use bitcoin-qt 0.8.6.0 since the last years.

2) You are wrong. Bitcoin-Qt 0.8.6.0 (and also older version I used)  reuse the same bitcoin address often -- as I can simply state from own expierience.
    It is a pity that you can not see the set of in-use-addresses and moreover control from which addresses coins should be used/sent for a new TA. :-/

3) Meanwhile both Tas are deleted from the unconfirmed TA-Pool listed at blockchain.info. It happens during I wrote my first message about 3,5 hours ago (which sadly got lost due to user-error on handling this web-posting-software while reviewing). Thus I know it was more than 48 hours listed but less than 49 hours. The second seems to be deleted in the same short time interval. Thus I assume someone (at blockchain.info?) removed both Tas manually after reading my post here.

Thank you.

Regards
achim

Hi

Sorry to bother you with my (probably very special) problem.
If it is inappropriate in this forum , feel free to shift this topic.

Last time, it was in January 2016, I used my bitcoin-qt client to send some BTC it works as expected.
I send 5 BTC and they were put into the blockchain after a few hours. I don't know exactly how long
I had to wait maybe even less than 1 hour.

But last monday, I sent a new transaction about 11 o'clock and it disappeared. ;-O
It looks like it wasn't relayed -- I got no error from my client. But after lunch I wondered that it was not
visible in the unconfirmed transaction list shown on www.blockchain.info.
I guess by an improbable reason it was deleted/not relayed and send the same transaction once again -- from a
back-up of my wallet made before the lost transaction.
I hope that I don't triggered a unknown bug by this action. ;-/

But luckily this transaction was listed as unconfirmed transaction on blockchain.info.

See URL   https://blockchain.info/address/13yTZGFmnbvb9YMKK7nNuHdYZPPAo4gHUv

But it is there listed since more than 46 hours :-(( [to be precise since 2016-04-18 12:58:55 UTC]

Yesterday I got nervous -- I have send dozends of transactions over the years, but NEVER had to wait more than 12 hours (probably even less than 6 hours at the most). I googled a bit a round in the internet and got the impression, that miners now-a-days dismiss the rule to incorporate transactions which higher age which higher priority. And also there was no large backlog (only about 3000 - 9000 transactions during the last 24 h waiting according to blockchain.info).
Even more I got suspicious that there are much less bitcoin-miners (resp. miner-pools) than in earlier days which now tend to force people to use fees, even for standard 0-fee transactions, by delaying 0-fee-transaction for days (or even years!!) :-(. [I got the impression all blocks mined in the last month came from only a dozend mining-pools].

Well, thus the very first time I send a new transaction from my wallet to another address with 4.9999 value + 0.0001 fee BTC.
This TA now is waiting in the unconfirmed TA-pool since more than 24 hours. :-(
But as I understand it can only be put into the blockchain if the first 0-fee TA is incorporated which it uses.

And if no miner will ever do this, my wallet with all its BTC is absolutely worthless because it is blocked. There is no way I can deleted a TA from the pool of all unconfirmed TAs. And as long as the BTC-network will not be completedly reset / die, this TA will be always sent forever between the bitcoin-nodes and never be disgarded from the network.

I 'm hopefully wrong with my last scenario, am I? What can I do to activate my wallet effectively -- get the hanging TA lost or better incorporated it into the blockchain in say (to stay realisticly) 1 or 2 days, finally? Hopefully not be forced to denote a mining pool an extra money for doing this? :-(

BTW: I have the bad feeling millions of "normal" customers are effectively depend on the grace/will of the say, biggest 10, mining pools. :-/

Thanks for any constructive help,
Achim

BTW: Forgive my spelling errors.

Man :-/ ...

0) I will not tell you why this message/informations did appear on his web-site NOW in spite I have a very good guess ....

1) I know Simon, he is no native english speaker/writer (like me) and probably he types these sentences in a hurry, at least in high time-pressure.

2) Ever heard of typos? For me, the y in the word "your" is one and then the sentence (with my background infos and deleting this "y") makes perfect sense!

A friendly pointer to these nervous guys: calm down, this would be better for everybody.
smtp

And for the other thing? *fg*
Hmm .. you mean this GUI-overhead results in about, I guess, ~ 20% of useless allocated RAM, of the total bitcoin-qt client? *LOL*
What a huge waste of resources. :->>

I believe it was a historical design decision for "prettyness", because the old GUI (wtx) was simple relative independently coded from the remaining code - or the new GUI (qt) was independently coded such that it was easy to get a GUI-less client, too (in the case that in the future the GUI will be changed again to a different library/API) -- well, my speculations.

smtp

Interesting attitude. But exactly so, I started to learn in many details how exactly the bitcoin-protocol works and what each detail in the block-chain means
by implementing both algorithms by my own. Because the only fully trustful reference are the bitcoin-client sources - there seem to exist no official specifications how it should work in detail (e.g. the specification in wiki-bitcoin are mainly (hand-edited) copies from the source code). :-/

smtp

Sorry, the last depends on your actual Linux-distribution or better its user-interface. Yes, I really had assumed you know how to handle the basics of file-management. Like searching for files, or moving/deleting/copying/listing them - whereever they are (maybe you need to mount your memory stick first?). I don't know what wallet.dat your current running (rescanning) client uses. BTW: A helpful info also might be in general to tell precise version no of the software (bitcoin-qt) you uses -- in the case you repeat your case in the technical forum.
smtp

Thanks psy, already looking for an easy way to patch ***'s brain.
:->>

smtp

I know this all. And thus I have to pay, because I'm defined to be a "non-bitcoiner" arbitrarily -- from email from wiki-administrator whom I asked why I can't write/change pages anymore! In my case I call this what it is: censorship (if you also know what I had wrote lastly in bitcoin-wiki) -- and I dislike to work anymore for such folk who can't accept well-tested (I would call fair) wikipedia-policies for editing-disagreements, but judge their oppinion as the correct one, and the other as a "non-bitcoiner". :-(

BTW: This all should not be a topic to withdraw attention from my main-topic.

smtp

The most real-time consuming action is not the pure download but the signature-verification for each TX-out in a block since bitcoin-0.8.0
(I wrote my own independent blockchain-parser and did all kind of verifications & checks) -- assuming you have a reasonable internet-bandwith connection.

Therefore you could simple fetch a "verified" blockchain (including a special PK-signature) by downloaded it from a trusted website(s) and only these web-sites need to update this block-chain-file(s) increamentally for public use. Then there is no signature checking necessary from the client anymore and you have a huge speed improvement when using the blockchain data.

Well, I wrote "trusted" website (by you). You doesn't trust ANY website in this matter? Then I wonder that you are using the bitcoin-client. Or are you really one of these extremly rare people who indeed checked all the source code of the bitcoin-client for a back-door or have you written your own bitcoin client?  

smtp

It is a question of wording - if we assume everybody knows all facts: you may call it a bug in bitcoin, that the BDB was used misconfigured.

Anyway, no need to insult people here from the very beginning of the thread - but this seems also a characteristic of this bitcoin forum(s) that this is tolerated. :-(

smtp

Hmm .. the bug (or do you call it a hidden feature?)  effectively touched bitcoin-miners and not directly(!) bitcoin-users. So the other obvious solution, which Pieter also suggested at first, was to push the longer chain, the one which grew faster and not to conceal/press effectively bitminers to do an effectively 51%-attack for the "good" of the network on this chain, because the 0.7-fork is "correct". This dubious politic is highly questionable, IMHO. On the other hand, effectively convincing/forcing miners to switch to 0.8 would surely have had the advantage of a much more equal code base for almost all miners afterwards.

Appendum: Again a very important issue, which reflects a real-time behaviour is: how can one estimate which approach (if we restrict us two only these 2 alternatives) will succeed significant earlier?

smtp

Yes, the common/general "banker"-word can surely subdivided in many specific categories. Currently "miners" can't really, perhaps only into these 2 (raw miner, pool operator), but as longer as mining evolutes as more specific sub-work jobs will show up, like in bank-business, IMHO. Compare bitcoin-age with bank-business, say, 1000 years ago. :-)
But nevertheless, the general/principle equivalence/relation "banker" <--> "miner" holds perfectly. Probably, the miner-community likes to avoid the word "banker" for themselves because of psychological reasons.
smtp

My advice: if it was a recent transaction (as you wrote), you will need to rescan nearly all the remaining (less than 10000) blocks. Unfortunately this could last still a day or more with your old client.
Thus: fetch the current 0.8.0-bitcoin-qt-client and use this in parallel for rescan (use option -bootstrap accessing all downloaded blocks) in an own directory (or even independent computer). This should be much quicker. After this you can copy your old wallet.dat into the new 0.8.0-.bitcoin directory and check it for your transactions.

smtp

The first sentence is as realistic as anyone can become a banker! *LOL*

smtp

Sorry, I can't resist. Such a good pattern/model/submission:

Well, our current bitcoin-world has also their "bankers", but they are called "miners".  

Whether they manipulate governments and markets, spread disinformation through the media, ... I can't judge (and personally I don't believe it)., but surely they are experts at their basic job:
They can be specified/defined for validation of transcations and get paid for this -- exactly like real-world bankers -- and monopolize this work!

smtp

Exactly!