Some one paid 1.0394BTC as fee for 2 transactions.

[coinzat]

There is something in these transactions with "replace by fees" new method. As he wants to double spend a transaction to scam someone
But I still can not understand why he paid so much fees !

[neochiny]

i think its just a big mistake that guy made.
or else theres no any other proper reason he will do it.
probably he doesnt know about how fees works,
so he even did it 2 times.

[randy8777]

damn, that must hurt! i think it's a newbie that made a very expensive mistake with including a +$400 fee. i wonder if he will create a thread asking for a way to get these coins back today.

[Dmc123dmc]

Ouch, I would kick my own ass if i did that!!!

[Dotakels]

Huh, that must be Santa who did that. Even 0.001 for transactions would be awfully fast in the network to be confirmed, let alone the digits you just gave here. Maybe just a mistake or did by purpose. It's either of the two lol/

[Bugf1x]

Must be a mistake, there's no need for such a high fee.

[btcprospecter]

That could be a really expensive mistake. Unless they just had money to throw away

[ranochigo]

he scammed someone maybe and want high priority for the transfer? this thing happned with the hacker on bitstamp, i remember the hacker payed 1 btc for the fee

But it's not Bitstamp. Bitstamp can detect the unauthorised TX fairly easily with the infrastructure and hence 1BTC would make any miner happy. No one in the right mind would immediately pay up to 1 BTC as a transaction fee just to prevent any double spend.

Judging by how both TXes only have one output. It would be possible that the client made an error and forgot to include any change address and thus the amount not redeemed is the miner fee. It's an expensive error.

[Amph]

he scammed someone maybe and want high priority for the transfer? this thing happned with the hacker on bitstamp, i remember the hacker payed 1 btc for the fee

But it's not Bitstamp. Bitstamp can detect the unauthorised TX fairly easily with the infrastructure and hence 1BTC would make any miner happy. No one in the right mind would immediately pay up to 1 BTC as a transaction fee just to prevent any double spend.

Judging by how both TXes only have one output. It would be possible that the client made an error and forgot to include any change address and thus the amount not redeemed is the miner fee. It's an expensive error.

is not for preventing double spend, it was for sending the funds asap , the hacker at that time did it for that reason on bitstamp

[franky1]

ok guys, seems theres alot of speculation so here's mine
1. it was not a tx from an exchange.
2. it was a tx from someone manually making a tx

so lessons for people making a manual tx
lets say you had 2btc and you wanted to send someone 0.5btc

normally 0 fee tx looks like
2.0  -> 0.5 someone else
           1.5 yourself (change address)

normally a 0.0001 fee paying address looks like
2.0  -> 0.5 someone else
           1.4999 yourself (change address)

notice that you dont manually input a fee as a separate destination.. you however dont give yourself all of your leftovers(change) and the inbalance is what becomes the fee.

so by sending out 0.5 to someone else and accidentally only giving yourself 1.0 return
2.0  -> 0.5 someone else
           1.0 yourself (change address)

you have accidentally given a 0.5btc fee to the miners.

exchanges dont (shouldnt atleast) make mistakes like that. and secondly people(exchange customers) cannot decide what leftovers should be returned if using an exchange as they do not control or see the script exchanges use..
so this tx seems like an operator error from someone that has access to making the behind the scenes tx, not a user error
so i think this is a noob trying to make his own bitcoin program, and royally screwed up

[P-Funk]

ok guys, seems theres alot of speculation so here's mine
1. it was not a tx from an exchange.
2. it was a tx from someone manually making a tx

Yup when this sort of thing happens it's usually someone making a manual transaction and screwing it up.

[ranochigo]

he scammed someone maybe and want high priority for the transfer? this thing happned with the hacker on bitstamp, i remember the hacker payed 1 btc for the fee

But it's not Bitstamp. Bitstamp can detect the unauthorised TX fairly easily with the infrastructure and hence 1BTC would make any miner happy. No one in the right mind would immediately pay up to 1 BTC as a transaction fee just to prevent any double spend.

Judging by how both TXes only have one output. It would be possible that the client made an error and forgot to include any change address and thus the amount not redeemed is the miner fee. It's an expensive error.

is not for preventing double spend, it was for sending the funds asap , the hacked at that time did it for taht reason on bitstamp

Why would they want the funds ASAP? They need at least a confirmation to try to stop Bitstamp from double spending it. If they don't, Bitstamp can easily double spend it by asking a few miners to mine their TX and move it elsewhere.

[CIYAM]

As @franky1 suggests it is most likely a mistake with creating a "raw transaction" (it seems fairly obvious that the tx creator forgot to add a "change output").

Compared to the mistake that I made in 2013 (with a fee of over 100 BTC) it really isn't so bad.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=135665

And the huge tx fee that I accidentally paid is not the highest on record (I forget exactly what the record is but it is well over 100).

[xhomerx10]

Such a fee is weird when you see the total amount of the coins he had sent. If the dude was sending 1000's of Bitcoins, then ok, I could kinda understand that a high fee would do it. Even 0.01-0.05BTC would definitely be enough to be included in the next block that is being mined.

I never said that it was not enough. I don't see the importance/relevance of your statement towards mine.

You didn't say that it wasn't enough, that right. But just look at the bolded part. That's why I said what I said.

Is that even possible? O.o

Why wouldn't it be? You can include any fee that you want. I'm not sure why you guys are surprised. Even though these events are rare, the fees included are far lower than the highest that we've had so far. Such a fee ensures that your transaction will process swiftly in addition to rewarding the miners.

That suggests something right?

 Yes the way it was worded implied the high fee was necessary for swift processing in this case.
Simple misunderstanding.

[franky1]

(it seems fairly obvious that the tx creator forgot to add a "change output").

they did put in a change address
https://blockchain.info/tx/621cd73e184ef9180f2b3451a1b5b244de48e07effc9be6b731f7466358a924f
(sending funds back to origin address)

they just didnt calculate the amount to send back correctly

[CIYAM]

they just didnt calculate the amount to send back correctly

Oh - yes - hmm... that does make you wonder then (perhaps a typo?).

[HeroCat]

I think it is just a mistake. No one would spend so much as the transaction fee, this is clear. 

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Well, that transaction must have been processed fast as hell if anything. Maybe there's also the possibility that this was a rich guy just doing some testing on the network.

[robelneo]

If you scammed someone why would you draw attention to it with a huge fee? A slightly above normal one's gonna do the job just fine. I guess it's probably an unfortunate mistake.

I agree with your opinion this is indeed a huge mistake and the sender is very unfortunate since there is no way it can be recovered this kind of things is the one that every one should be aware you can do that on paypal but never on bitcoin transaction where there is no third party that can help you recover the funds

[smiletyson]

Relayed bt IP: blockchain.info
Wallet is probably web wallet.

A warning should be displayed by wallets while sending with these kinda huge fees.