0 confirmations - 0.0001 fee

[wannesd]

A transaction to my wallet has 0 confirmations after 2+ hours, although the fee was set to 0.0001 btc.
https://blockchain.info/nl/tx/7f0db7c7b6e78d692f3c4e9f6aa571c82cf91c35a3c895412919119ad3f12542

Could anyone tell me what could cause this?

[achow101]

You are trying to spend an unconfirmed transaction that spent an unconfirmed transaction and so on. In order for this to be confirmed, the very first unconfirmed transaction in that chain must be confirmed before the other transactions in the chain are confirmed and then yours will be too.

Edit: here is that first unconfirmed transaction in the chain: https://blockchain.info/tx/d9c1c73475bdbc4771d693cff47b700a4261368d5145c1e3c28b5d300b693073

[wannesd]

Where can I see this, and follow it up?

[DannyHamilton]

At 2015-06-16 12:29:15 UTC transactionID d9c1c73475bdbc4771d693cff47b700a4261368d5145c1e3c28b5d300b693073 included a 12.23775902 BTC output to address 1EwLv9ZK4xk3jo4AGtW7e1QuVqN4xkjenu

That transaction was 10852 bytes in size but only included a 0.0001 BTC transaction fee. This fee is less than 0.00001 BTC per 1000 bytes, and while the transaction may confirm eventually, it probably isn't enough of an incentive for most mining pools to quickly confirm it.

At 2015-06-16 12:53:25 UTC that unconfirmed output was used (along with other confirmed outputs) to fund transactionID 2e397e9b9fe19654b930a1d8bb238c5d96c5419c1e12f31f5a60768ad4fbe41b which paid a 60.7560893 BTC output to address 178uAt6eYHx3SMBkrA1sbJ3cHGfq1xuYm

While that transaction does include a 0.0002 BTC transaction fee, and is only 1078 bytes in size (which is more than 0.0001 BTC per 1000 bytes). That transaction cannot confirm until the previously mentioned transaction confirms.

At 2015-06-16 15:24:45 UTC that unconfirmed output was used to fund transactionID 0e8394c8087c36b59b11d3e27da16f2d70c85b4bed1d1000a95ad5eb3ed5b612 which paid a 40 BTC output to address 14L5z3d5hwzwNqrhgPaDLUJvtXYedi1ymL

While that transaction does include a 0.0001 BTC transaction fee and is only 225 bytes in size (which is more than 0.0001 BTC per 1000 bytes). That transaction cannot confirm until the previously mentioned transaction confirms.

At 2015-06-16 19:14:35 UTC that unconfirmed output was used (along with other confirmed outputs) to fund transactionID 234c1f364ad6120c70bf4404f1509abea76cec7490d47517a1a337e902c32f7c which paid a 50 BTC output to address 12McFd7iiTPfemzqHWkus5qRqKqoLPKqBj

While that transaction does include a 0.0001 BTC transaction fee and is only 667 bytes in size (which is more than 0.0001 BTC per 1000 bytes). That transaction cannot confirm until the previously mentioned transaction confirms.

At 2015-06-16 19:15:12 UTC that unconfirmed output was used to fund the transaction that you are asking about, transactionID 7f0db7c7b6e78d692f3c4e9f6aa571c82cf91c35a3c895412919119ad3f12542.

While the transaction you are asking about does include a 0.0001 BTC transaction fee and is only 225 bytes in size (which is more than 0.0001 BTC per 1000 bytes). That transaction cannot confirm until the previously mentioned transaction confirms.

[wannesd]

At 2015-06-16 12:29:15 UTC transactionID d9c1c73475bdbc4771d693cff47b700a4261368d5145c1e3c28b5d300b693073 included a 12.23775902 BTC output to address 1EwLv9ZK4xk3jo4AGtW7e1QuVqN4xkjenu

That transaction was 10852 bytes in size but only included a 0.0001 BTC transaction fee. This fee is less than 0.00001 BTC per 1000 bytes, and while the transaction may confirm eventually, it probably isn't enough of an incentive for most mining pools to quickly confirm it.

At 2015-06-16 12:53:25 UTC that unconfirmed output was used (along with other confirmed outputs) to fund transactionID 2e397e9b9fe19654b930a1d8bb238c5d96c5419c1e12f31f5a60768ad4fbe41b which paid a 60.7560893 BTC output to address 178uAt6eYHx3SMBkrA1sbJ3cHGfq1xuYm

While that transaction does include a 0.0002 BTC transaction fee, and is only 1078 bytes in size (which is more than 0.0001 BTC per 1000 bytes). That transaction cannot confirm until the previously mentioned transaction confirms.

At 2015-06-16 15:24:45 UTC that unconfirmed output was used to fund transactionID 0e8394c8087c36b59b11d3e27da16f2d70c85b4bed1d1000a95ad5eb3ed5b612 which paid a 40 BTC output to address 14L5z3d5hwzwNqrhgPaDLUJvtXYedi1ymL

While that transaction does include a 0.0001 BTC transaction fee and is only 225 bytes in size (which is more than 0.0001 BTC per 1000 bytes). That transaction cannot confirm until the previously mentioned transaction confirms.

At 2015-06-16 19:14:35 UTC that unconfirmed output was used (along with other confirmed outputs) to fund transactionID 234c1f364ad6120c70bf4404f1509abea76cec7490d47517a1a337e902c32f7c which paid a 50 BTC output to address 12McFd7iiTPfemzqHWkus5qRqKqoLPKqBj

While that transaction does include a 0.0001 BTC transaction fee and is only 667 bytes in size (which is more than 0.0001 BTC per 1000 bytes). That transaction cannot confirm until the previously mentioned transaction confirms.

At 2015-06-16 19:15:12 UTC that unconfirmed output was used to fund the transaction that you are asking about, transactionID 7f0db7c7b6e78d692f3c4e9f6aa571c82cf91c35a3c895412919119ad3f12542.

While the transaction you are asking about does include a 0.0001 BTC transaction fee and is only 225 bytes in size (which is more than 0.0001 BTC per 1000 bytes). That transaction cannot confirm until the previously mentioned transaction confirms.

well, that was a very detailed answer!
So if the first tx comes through, all the rest will have no problems?

[DannyHamilton]

well, that was a very detailed answer!
So if the first tx comes through, all the rest will have no problems?

Probably.

It depends on how long it takes for the first transaction to confirm, what wallets were used to send the subsequent transactions, and who was involved in the sending or receiving of those transactions.

You should absolutely NOT accept the 7f0db7c7b6e78d692f3c4e9f6aa571c82cf91c35a3c895412919119ad3f12542 transaction as being completed unless you have a strong trust relationship with the person that sent it.  While the problems with transaction were *probably* not intentional, it is possible to structure transactions like this as a method of trying to erase a transaction before it confirms.