ROR

[odolvlobo]

So if you sent the coin last night, what address did you send it to? Since the current address was just generated 1 hour ago? What happened to last nights transaction, is it on the blockchain?

I guess emotions had taken over and I've asked for help before actually doing enough work myself.
Essentially the remaining balance last night went to: https://blockchain.info/address/13EQZzdrBdHciQSg8bGfNr2YnTV9H1Bjmy
however, I have generated that address about 1 hour and 10 minutes ago.

Sounds like it might be a bug in Bitcoin Core in which it didn't realize it already used an address as a change address.

[1714785475]

1714785475

[1714785475]

1714785475

[1714785475]

1714785475

[kingcolex]

So if you sent the coin last night, what address did you send it to? Since the current address was just generated 1 hour ago? What happened to last nights transaction, is it on the blockchain?

I guess emotions had taken over and I've asked for help before actually doing enough work myself.
Essentially the remaining balance last night went to: https://blockchain.info/address/13EQZzdrBdHciQSg8bGfNr2YnTV9H1Bjmy
however, I have generated that address about 1 hour and 10 minutes ago.

Okay I am a bit confused on one part, last night did you send .17 btc to an address on purpose or was this a bug from upgrading?  or is the confusion from you upgraded and it is all fine but the blockchain is showing it as happening last night instead of an hour ago?

[shorena]

So if you sent the coin last night, what address did you send it to? Since the current address was just generated 1 hour ago? What happened to last nights transaction, is it on the blockchain?

I guess emotions made me make a thread before actually doing enough research myself. I could have spared others some time, I'm sorry.

Essentially the remaining balance last night went to: https://blockchain.info/address/13EQZzdrBdHciQSg8bGfNr2YnTV9H1Bjmy
however, I have generated that address about 1 hour and 10 minutes ago.

Just to make sure I understand you: So its a change address from a TX you did in the past (yesterday) and was now shown just recently (~1 hour ago) when you clicked "+ new" in the receiving address window?

What does "getwalletinfo" from the console return for "keypoolsize"? Bitcoin core pregenerates 100 addresses and tries to keep it that way, unless you changed this via the config file.

[DannyHamilton]

Ok, so now that we've confirmed that this is not an address collision, the question remains:  What actually happened.

If you want to take the time to write up exactly what you've done with that wallet in the past 36 hours or so in detail, it might be possible to analyze your actions and make an educated guess which step led to these results.

The most likely cause would be recovering a wallet.dat backup.  If you did not recover a wallet.dat backup and you are not using this same wallet.dat elsewhere, then it seems likely that there is either a small bug in the the wallet's use of the address pool, or there is a small bug in the upgrade process (if you upgraded the wallet after the first transaction and before the second).

[Lauda]

Ok, so now that we've confirmed that this is not an address collision, the question remains:  What actually happened.

If you want to take the time to write up exactly what you've done with that wallet in the past 36 hours or so in detail, it might be possible to analyze your actions and make an educated guess which step led to these results.

The most likely cause would be recovering a wallet.dat backup.  If you did not recover a wallet.dat backup and you are not using this same wallet.dat elsewhere, then it seems likely that there is either a small bug in the the wallet's use of the address pool, or there is a small bug in the upgrade process (if you upgraded the wallet after the first transaction and before the second).

Well there isn't much to write in details. I've done the following:
1) I've copied over my whole Bitcoin folder (it was on D:\Bitcoin , not my system drive) to a new external drive
2) I've removed the D:\ drive and renamed the external one to D:\
3) Synced up the wallet
4) Sent the 0.12 to someone last night
5) Opened it up today to sync and generate a new address
6) Made a new thread.

Just to make sure I understand you: So its a change address from a TX you did in the past (yesterday) and was now shown just recently (~1 hour ago) when you clicked "+ new" in the receiving address window?

What does "getwalletinfo" from the console return for "keypoolsize"? Bitcoin core pregenerates 100 addresses and tries to keep it that way, unless you changed this via the config file.

Yes. I didn't check the transaction that I had sent last night on blockchain.info. The address first appeared after clicking "+ new" ~1.3 hours ago

I didn't change anything via any config file.

[bitcoinmasterlord]

Ok, so now that we've confirmed that this is not an address collision, the question remains:  What actually happened.

If you want to take the time to write up exactly what you've done with that wallet in the past 36 hours or so in detail, it might be possible to analyze your actions and make an educated guess which step led to these results.

The most likely cause would be recovering a wallet.dat backup.  If you did not recover a wallet.dat backup and you are not using this same wallet.dat elsewhere, then it seems likely that there is either a small bug in the the wallet's use of the address pool, or there is a small bug in the upgrade process (if you upgraded the wallet after the first transaction and before the second).

Well there isn't much to write in details. I've done the following:
1) I've copied over my whole Bitcoin folder (it was on D:\Bitcoin , not my system drive) to a new external drive
2) I've removed the D:\ drive and renamed the external one to D:\
3) Synced up the wallet
4) Sent the 0.12 to someone last night
5) Opened it up today to sync and generate a new address
6) Made a new thread.

Just to make sure I understand you: So its a change address from a TX you did in the past (yesterday) and was now shown just recently (~1 hour ago) when you clicked "+ new" in the receiving address window?

What does "getwalletinfo" from the console return for "keypoolsize"? Bitcoin core pregenerates 100 addresses and tries to keep it that way, unless you changed this via the config file.

Yes. I didn't check the transaction that I had sent last night on blockchain.info. The address first appeared after clicking "+ new" ~1.3 hours ago

I didn't change anything via any config file.

If you sent the bitcoins to another persons wallet and the coins on the wallet are the change then maybe you are right that bitcoin qt didn't realize that it already had this address as a change address. Can this be? Maybe a question to development subforum.

So you sent 0.179 to the other and the spare 0.12 went to a change address that today is taken as a normal address by your wallet.

Besides... you should reconsider using change addresses as long as you don't want your wallet addresses being easily find out.

[Lauda]

If you sent the bitcoins to another persons wallet and the coins on the wallet are the change then maybe you are right that bitcoin qt didn't realize that it already had this address as a change address. Can this be? Maybe a question to development subforum.

So you sent 0.179 to the other and the spare 0.12 went to a change address that today is taken as a normal address by your wallet.

Besides... you should reconsider using change addresses as long as you don't want your wallet addresses being easily find out.

I've sent 0.12 to a person and the change which was 0.1799 went to an address that I didn't have at that time. The address that received the change wasn't generated until a day later.
I don't really care about that as this wallet is of low significance. As I've previously stated I didn't even realize that one of the addresses was mine until Danny asked (a bit embarrassing but still).

I wouldn't have made a thread if I didn't suspect an address collision (which it is not).

[bitcoinmasterlord]

If you sent the bitcoins to another persons wallet and the coins on the wallet are the change then maybe you are right that bitcoin qt didn't realize that it already had this address as a change address. Can this be? Maybe a question to development subforum.

So you sent 0.179 to the other and the spare 0.12 went to a change address that today is taken as a normal address by your wallet.

Besides... you should reconsider using change addresses as long as you don't want your wallet addresses being easily find out.

I've sent 0.12 to a person and the change which was 0.1799 went to an address that I didn't have at that time. The address that received the change wasn't generated until a day later.
I don't really care about that as this wallet is of low significance. As I've previously stated I didn't even realize that one of the addresses was mine until Danny asked (a bit embarrassing but still).

I wouldn't have made a thread if I didn't suspect an address collision (which it is not).

Sorry, i mixed that then.

So the problem is you received change on an address that only was created later. Though the address had to exist before in your wallet, otherwise you wouldn't had get the change to it.

I think since you copied the wallet.dat that something was happen on the way. I doubt it's a general problem.

[Lauda]

Sorry, i mixed that then.

So the problem is you received change on an address that only was created later. Though the address had to exist before in your wallet, otherwise you wouldn't had get the change to it.

I think since you copied the wallet.dat that something was happen on the way. I doubt it's a general problem.

Exactly. I generated the address a day later. That's what I concluded during the investigation and with the helps of others (especially Danny).
No. The wallet.dat was just moved from disk 1 to disk 2 and then the software was automatically (on startup it asked for a location) pointed towards disk 2 and the first one was unplugged.

[bitcoinmasterlord]

Sorry, i mixed that then.

So the problem is you received change on an address that only was created later. Though the address had to exist before in your wallet, otherwise you wouldn't had get the change to it.

I think since you copied the wallet.dat that something was happen on the way. I doubt it's a general problem.

Exactly. I generated the address a day later. That's what I concluded during the investigation and with the helps of others (especially Danny).
No. The wallet.dat was just moved from disk 1 to disk 2 and then the software was automatically (on startup it asked for a location) pointed towards disk 2 and the first one was unplugged.

Maybe there are other files involved that trigger which addresses are shown or so. Maybe in your old place the transaction and wallet was seeable, then you moved, had other configuration files, and the address including transaction was not shown anymore. Then it was recreated.

Only a guess. I don't know the inner workings of the client so good.

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
The wallet.dat was just moved from disk 1 to disk 2 and then the software was automatically (on startup it asked for a location) pointed towards disk 2 and the first one was unplugged.

We are comparing my "best guess" against your "best memory" here, so I really don't know which is more likely to be right. However...

The only thing that I can think of that would cause this effect would be if you copied the wallet to disk 2, and THEN sent the transaction while the wallet was still using disk 1.  Then after sending the transaction, the wallet was pointed towards disk 2, and disk 1 was unplugged.

The behavior seen in this thread is EXACTLY what I would expect under those conditions.

[Lauda]

We are comparing my "best guess" against your "best memory" here, so I really don't know which is more likely to be right. However...

The only thing that I can think of that would cause this effect would be if you copied the wallet to disk 2, and THEN sent the transaction while the wallet was still using disk 1.  Then after sending the transaction, the wallet was pointed towards disk 2, and disk 1 was unplugged.

The behavior seen in this thread is EXACTLY what I would expect under those conditions.

Well since the events happened recently my memory should be considered to be the truth. I didn't know about the other address because I've used it once and 2 months ago.
That did not happen. I sent the transaction. The day after I copied over the Bitcoin folder and removed the HDD. Later that day I opened up Bitcoin Core and set the path to the new folder.