sent money to my Mycelium wallet now transaction failed Bitcoins lost????

[BNO]

Hi all,

i just tried to sent some money from Bitstamp to my mycelium wallet. The Wallet shows me the Adress:
12PTTP9vAaHEP8LrYRnLwPtWZALr1Zwx5c

Now i got the message from the exchagen that the Transaction failed. (First it went through but later it was changed to failed).

Then i typed this address into Blockchain info. and it says something like "unreckognized search pattern" what does that mean??

[1715328958]

1715328958

[1715328958]

1715328958

[BNO]

O.K. i just saw that Bitstamp didn't take the coins from my account. But what heck? Did mycelium create a syntactically wrong address for my wallet? Or what is going on?

[AgentofCoin]

Hi all,

i just tried to sent some money from Bitstamp to my mycelium wallet. The Wallet shows me the Adress:
12PTTP9vAaHEP8LrYRnLwPtWZALr1Zwx5c

Now i got the message from the exchagen that the Transaction failed. (First it went through but later it was changed to failed).

Then i typed this address into Blockchain info. and it says something like "unreckognized search pattern" what does that mean??

Hello again.
Today, Coinwallet.eu is "performing" their "testing" (or attack) on the Bitcoin network.
Because of this, it is possible that transactions from certain exchanges or wallets might have problems.

I just searched for your address on blockr.io and it seems to be a valid address, but there is no btc in it currently.
During these "stress tests" Blockchain.info usually has many problems with their block explorer.

It is possible that the exchange is having problems during this "testing".

[AgentofCoin]

Maybe some of the inputs were from the spam attack, it's making transactions fail. I wonder what will happen if someone successfully sends a dollar of these 'spam' bitcoins to an exchange, that might be what happened  

A dollar of this sent to a wallet with 100 Bitcoins could render it unusable, would take very advanced expertise to save the coins.

That is very interesting.
Can you provide me a link with a more in depth explanation?
My understanding was that when the spam inputs were swept into a new address and "consolidated",
it should be spendable again. Never heard of corrupting good coins with small bad inputs.

[DannyHamilton]

I wonder what will happen if someone successfully sends a dollar of these 'spam' bitcoins to an exchange,

If the exchange is stupid enough to re-use those same outputs in their own transactions before the outputs confirm, then the exchange deserves as much bad publicity as they can possibly get from such incompetent behavior.  Are you suggesting that all exchanges are run by people that are as inept as the guy that ran MtGox?

that might be what happened  

I sure hope that BitStamp isn't dumb enough to make a mistake like that.

FAR more likely is that BitStamp didn't pay a high enough transaction fee on the transaction.  As such, miners confirmed other higher priority transactions instead.  Because there are so many transactions on the network from this so-called "stress test", nodes are dropping the older transactions from their memory pool.  The transaction from BitStamp eventually gotten forgotten about by most nodes before it was confirmed, and BitStamp has credited back your account on their site because they no longer believe that the original transaction will ever confirm.  They may automatically re-send the bitcoins to you, or you may need to re-request them.

A dollar of this sent to a wallet with 100 Bitcoins could render it unusable,

Sweeping a dollar of it to any well written wallet would have no effect adverse effect on the wallet as long as it was done with just a few transactions.

The transaction (or transactions) would simply be "unconfirmed" until they were included in a block by a miner.  As long as the wallet knows better than to use the unconfirmed outputs when building transactions, the outputs won't be a problem.  If the wallet is using the unconfirmed outputs when building transactions, then I suggest that you stop using that wallet and switch to a better wallet.

Once the transaction (or transactions) are confirmed, the user can simply spend the bitcoins as usual.

If someone used thousands of outputs to sent it to a wallet with 100 Bitcoins, it might be slightly inconvenient.  If the wallet supports coin control (such as Bitcoin Core), then the user can simply avoid the tiny outputs and send the rest of their bitcoins to a new wallet.

would take very advanced expertise to save the coins.

Probably not, but it depends on how it's done.

[BNO]

Hey AgentofCoin,

good hearing you again   Thanks for the tipp with blockr. Yes its rigth i just wanted to play with the newly downloaded mycelium and thought the app created a wrong address. It was only playmoney but i thought wtf!!

Sended yesterday some coins and it went super smoothly.

[quotMaybe some of the inputs were from the spam attack, it's making transactions fail. I wonder what will happen if someone successfully sends a dollar of these 'spam' bitcoins to an exchange, that might be what happened  Shockede][/quote]

I did never send any of those to my bitstamp account. Till today i did not even know what that is, not think about having those. So can you explain how to make your coins so toxic, that they poison others. The audience is frightend and captured by your words  

[AgentofCoin]

I did never send any of those to my bitstamp account. Till today i did not even know what that is, not think about having those. So can you explain how to make your coins so toxic, that they poison others. The audience is frightend and captured by your words  

DannyHamilton has answered the question.
The problem really arises from unconfirmed spam inputs, not that they are spam inputs in general.
(I misunderstood turtlehurricane)

You do not need to "send those coins to your account".
The exchange, i assume, withdrawals coins from an exchange address, which contains many users "deposits".
When you request a withdrawal, your coins come from many other coins.
Since someone may have entered the unconfirmed spam input into that exchange address, it could cause problems.
Thus, it can effect everyone who requests a withdrawal, in theory.

But it is more likely that your problem arises from the "stress test", and not from unconfirmed inputs.

[BNO]

I sure hope that BitStamp isn't dumb enough to make a mistake like that.

If someone used thousands of outputs to sent it to a wallet with 100 Bitcoins, it might be slightly inconvenient.  If the wallet supports coin control (such as Bitcoin Core), then the user can simply avoid the tiny outputs and send the rest of their bitcoins to a new wallet.

I have some noob questions about that. if someone doesn't mind.

I now read that coinwallet created one Address with 0.51 btc in it, that consists of 50.000 dust transactions with the size of 7MB. In Bitcoin my Bitcoins are tx outputs from before. Lets say i get this 0.51BTC to my wallet of 10BTC does that mean that the next time i spent e.g. 0.7 btc the size of my tx will be 7MB and wait forever to be confirmed?. So no matter where those BTCtravel the will always have this 7 MB"weight" they carry around? Or does this only hold true till the "dustcoins" have 1 confirmation - i ask this because the second quote sounds like it does matter even if confirmed.

Another thing i thought yesterday about. What kind of fees do the exchanges - lets say bitstamp and btc-e - pay for a tx? Just the minimum? Would they send it for 0 if it qualified? I bothered me that i could not set the fee myself. With more and more blocks getting fuller this wil become more and more important...

[BNO]

But it is more likely that your problem arises from the "stress test", and not from unconfirmed inputs.

Hm according to this site:
https://bitcoinfees.github.io/#1m

nothing to dramatic is going on. But of course i don't know what bitstamp pays for a tx. Wit btc-e yesterday it was a charme. Btc-e takes 0.001BTC fee for tx, but of course i don't know what their policy is on how much to spend on tx.

[AgentofCoin]

...
I now read that coinwallet created one Address with 0.51 btc in it, that consists of 50.000 dust transactions with the size of 7MB. In Bitcoin my Bitcoins are tx outputs from before. Lets say i get this 0.51BTC to my wallet of 10BTC does that mean that the next time i spent e.g. 0.7 btc the size of my tx will be 7MB and wait forever to be confirmed?. So no matter where those BTCtravel the will always have this 7 MB"weight" they carry around? Or does this only hold true till the "dustcoins" have 1 confirmation - i ask this because the second quote sounds like it does matter even if confirmed.

First of all that is a complex question, that I'm sure DannyHamilton or some other expert can answer properly.
The short answer for you is that it is highly unlikely you will be able to move the 0.51 btc since the data size is too large.
You would in theory need to spend almost the whole amount on a miner fee just to move it. (Probably 0.5 btc.)
Remember that your miner fee is really based upon the size of the total tx you wish to make.

**Edit: Forgot to add. When you finally move and get a confirm on those coins, you will not longer "carry" the 7mb.
That only applies to that transaction. Not all future transactions. But that 7mb is now part of the blockchain forever.
When people download the "blockchain" for wallets like Bitcoin Core, they will "carry" the 7mb in the file size.

Another thing i thought yesterday about. What kind of fees do the exchanges - lets say bitstamp and btc-e - pay for a tx? Just the minimum? Would they send it for 0 if it qualified? I bothered me that i could not set the fee myself. With more and more blocks getting fuller this wil become more and more important...

They would pay the minimum as the standard. I have never heard of any exchange paying a 0 fee.
Yes, this will be more of a problem as time goes on, but exchanges and wallets are currently upgrading
to give users ability to set the fee themselves or is self adjusting based on current mempool size.

[DannyHamilton]

I have some noob questions about that. if someone doesn't mind.

Don't mind at all.  I'm always willing to help someone learn a bit more about how bitcoin operates at a technical level.

I now read that coinwallet created one Address with 0.51 btc in it, that consists of 50.000 dust transactions with the size of 7MB. In Bitcoin my Bitcoins are tx outputs from before. Lets say i get this 0.51BTC to my wallet of 10BTC does that mean that the next time i spent e.g. 0.7 btc the size of my tx will be 7MB and wait forever to be confirmed?. So no matter where those BTCtravel the will always have this 7 MB"weight" they carry around?

No.  That's not how it works.  When a transaction is created, it lists all the currently unspent outputs that it is using to fund the transaction.  Those are the "inputs" to the transaction.  Then it creates a list of all the new unspent outputs that the transaction is using to transfer control of value.  Once the transaction is confirmed, the previously unspent outputs that are included in the list of "inputs" are now considered by the system to be "spent".  They are removed from the UTXO (unspent transaction output) list that is maintained by all nodes and used for validating transactions.  The new outputs that the transaction created are added to the UTXO so that they can be spent in the future.

Therefore, any future transaction only needs to list the new outputs that were created when the 0.51 BTC were sent to you.

Or does this only hold true till the "dustcoins" have 1 confirmation - i ask this because the second quote sounds like it does matter even if confirmed.

Remember that the transaction that sends the 0.51 BTC creates an outputs (or outputs) that transfer control of that 0.51 to you.  If the transaction that sends you the 0.51 BTC is created by someone in such a way that they listed it in 10 different outputs of 0.051 BTC each, then you'll have 10 outputs you'll need to deal with when you create your transaction.  If they send it to you in such a way that they listed it in 1000 different outputs of 0.00051 BTC each, then you'll have 1000 outputs you'll need to deal with when you create your transaction.

Another thing i thought yesterday about. What kind of fees do the exchanges - lets say bitstamp and btc-e - pay for a tx? Just the minimum? Would they send it for 0 if it qualified? I bothered me that i could not set the fee myself. With more and more blocks getting fuller this wil become more and more important...

Each exchange can choose whatever fee they want, so you'll either need to ask the operators of the exchange, or you'll need to look at many transactions that you've confirmed that they've sent to see what fee they out on there.  As a business, they have a financial incentive to provide a level of service that their customers are happy with (otherwise their customers will switch to a competitor).  Therefore, they would hopefully learn pretty quickly to compute a reasonable transaction fee and pay it (or provide the user enough control over the fees that the user is happy with the result).  If they fail to do so, they may find that their business loses revenue and they might eventually have to shut down.

[AgentofCoin]

But it is more likely that your problem arises from the "stress test", and not from unconfirmed inputs.

Hm according to this site:
https://bitcoinfees.github.io/#1m

nothing to dramatic is going on. But of course i don't know what bitstamp pays for a tx. Wit btc-e yesterday it was a charme. Btc-e takes 0.001BTC fee for tx, but of course i don't know what their policy is on how much to spend on tx.

If you have transactions from bitstamp from the past, you can look at it with a block explorer and see what they place as a fee.
I have never used bitstamp nor know what fee they usually pay, so I have no answer.

I assume they did 0.0001 and it was just rejected.
According to this site : http://www.cointape.com/#delay
You should pay around 0.0004+ for a fee, currently.

[BNO]

Hi Danny (and AgentofCoin too) thanks for that answer!

But let me check what i got right here.
So i just "explain" in my words what i understood and if you/someone could just say yes or no if its right or not:

Therefore, any future transaction only needs to list the new outputs that were created when the 0.51 BTC were sent to you.

I having a little trouble here to undestand what new UTXO where created when the 0.51 BTC where sent to me. The whole 0.51BTC should be an UXTO for me, right? Or do you mean that the fees have to be substracted, but that would have the sender to pay right?

If they send it to you in such a way that they listed it in 1000 different outputs of 0.00051 BTC each, then you'll have 1000 outputs you'll need to deal with when you create your transaction.

2 questions on that. Since you are an expert: Could you just say me how large the aforementioned tx with the 1000 Outputs (bytes) would be? Minimum tx size is 140byte i read somewhere. How large would that one be? Just dumb it down/make a rough guess, doesn't have to be perfect at all, just give me a "housenumber" as we say in germany! That would improve my understanding a lot of this.

On a more economically level that would mean that 1BTC i receive can have a "different value" depending on how "clean" and small i get this. 1BTC in a "whole" has much more worth than if i get it in 1000 txs, because the fees i would need to pay to spend this BTC would be much higher if it had 1000 Outputs. Right?


Many more questions in my mind, but if someone could answer that, that would be great and i would take it then from there...

[DannyHamilton]

I having a little trouble here to undestand what new UTXO where created when the 0.51 BTC where sent to me. The whole 0.51BTC should be an UXTO for me, right?

If the entire 0.51 BTC was sent to you as a single output, then yes the whole 0.51 BTC will be a single unspent output.  If you wanted to then create a transaction that was funded only by that 0.51 BTC output, then your input list would just be a list of the 1 output.

Or do you mean that the fees have to be substracted, but that would have the sender to pay right?

Right, if a transaction fee is paid, then it is the sender of the transaction that determines what that fee is.  Their transaction creating software does this by making sure that the sum of their transaction outputs is less than the sum of their transaction inputs.  The difference is the fee.

Could you just say me how large the aforementioned tx with the 1000 Outputs (bytes) would be? Minimum tx size is 140 byte i read somewhere. How large would that one be? Just dumb it down/make a rough guess, doesn't have to be perfect at all, just give me a "housenumber" as we say in germany! That would improve my understanding a lot of this.

Assuming that compressed keys and version 1 addresses were used when creating the outputs:

Each output listed as an input requires between 147 and 149 bytes
Each new output created requires another 34 bytes
There is 10 bytes of overhead required by every transaction

So, if you create a transaction that has 1000 inputs, and 2 outputs, the smallest your transaction can be is:
(147 * 1000) + (2 * 34) + 10 = 147044 bytes

The largest your transaction might be is:
(149 * 1000) + (2 * 34) + 10 = 149044 bytes

On a more economically level that would mean that 1BTC i receive can have a "different value" depending on how "clean" and small i get this.

Correct.  Generally the difference is in value is small enough that it doesn't much matter, but if you are trying to create transactions to send very small amounts of value, this can become a problem for you.

1BTC in a "whole" has much more worth than if i get it in 1000 txs, because the fees i would need to pay to spend this BTC would be much higher if it had 1000 Outputs. Right?

Correct.

If you were going to pay a typical 0.00001 BTC fee per kilobyte, then using 1 BTC that was received in 1000 transaction outputs would cost you at least 0.00149 BTC, while it would only cost you 0.00001 BTC if it was received in a single output.

Many more questions in my mind, but if someone could answer that, that would be great and i would take it then from there...

No problem.  Glad to help.

[maokoto]

I would advise not to move anything unless it is an absolute neccesity until the stress test has passed.

[BNO]

Great stuff DannyHamilton!!

while reading your answer 2 more questions arose.

On a more economically level that would mean that 1BTC i receive can have a "different value" depending on how "clean" and small i get this. 1BTC in a "whole" has much more worth than if i get it in 1000 txs, because the fees i would need to pay to spend this BTC would be much higher if it had 1000 Outputs. Right?

Taking this thought one more time. Can i check somewhere of how much "parts"/UXTO one tx i receive consists? checked blockchain.info and blockr.io but couldn't find it - did i overlook it?

If you were going to pay a typical 0.00001 BTC fee per kilobyte,

About the fees more generally. Could you (or someone) give me a short overlook which fees are in which height are mandatory by the protocoll? And what is just the default value/rule of thumb to use. I read sometimes something about fees - but i never really undestood what the protocoll demands and what is just the default values of some wallets.

Any case: thanks a lot to you Danny, but its only slowly sinking in....

EDIT: If someone has a good read about the topic of fees, i would be interested since like to shool myself a little on this toppic. Thanks.

[adamstgBit]

Then i typed this address into Blockchain info. and it says something like "unrecognized search pattern" what does that mean??

"unrecognized search pattern" means your public address you are trying to send to is invalid, this is why it failed to send.

looks like "12PTTP9vAaHEP8LrYRnLwPtWZALr1Zwx5c" isnt a vaild bitcoin address

where is this address from? your mycelium maybe be bugging, or you didn't copy the address properly ?


this has nothing to do with fees... your TX will show up as unconfirmed instantly no matter what fee you pay or did not pay.

[BNO]

looks like "12PTTP9vAaHEP8LrYRnLwPtWZALr1Zwx5c" isnt a vaild bitcoin address

No i think it is. If you read the comment of AgentofCoins blockr.io shows that it is a valid address and mycelium created it, so i think blockchain.info is buggin...

[RGBKey]

Maybe some of the inputs were from the spam attack, it's making transactions fail. I wonder what will happen if someone successfully sends a dollar of these 'spam' bitcoins to an exchange, that might be what happened  

A dollar of this sent to a wallet with 100 Bitcoins could render it unusable, would take very advanced expertise to save the coins.

If you can find a wallet that allows you to select the inputs you want in the transaction, you can filter out the ones from the coinwallet spam.