[Resolved] 111 BTC AS FEES (don't do raw tx's when you're tired)

[CIYAM]

Please try and help me out by pushing this raw tx if you can:

Code:

01000000012083d029fb7d82921aac5e36e02c152f8dd74e5798197f060ecdff0ed7cb7a3b010000008a4730440220231c75022c55603400521a0daba522afdf16f8a71b3c00108e00c15b0707f43202200ca00128831405020055183c83e0ed4e786fd6297dfc1da0718a22301a7e2b6001410478733799662c00333f074ce5b24935fe140572d83cf176989fdd260dea1609a07e42708fed07ad9c9d2ddfccf4451037dc380221b690abf740f30beaca94d80affffffff010092b2e3040000001976a914164ed07f460ece3dbc4c04509b75580b7bee736a88ac00000000

If I can't get it back via a doublespend then I hope that if the lucky miner is one of the major pools then they would consider making a generous donation to the CIYAM Project (as otherwise that is 100 BTC less I will have to pay people for tasks).

[TheButterZone]

https://blockchain.info/pushtx

[ssateneth]

Wow thats a lot of BTC. Sorry for your loss. Raw transactions are dangerous.

[CIYAM]

https://blockchain.info/pushtx

I won't let me send it (it has already seen it) - 2 confirmations now so too late for that attempt:

Block #215936 (BTC Guild) - is there someone on Bitcointalk that is a contact for them?

[John (John K.)]

https://blockchain.info/pushtx

I won't let me send it (it has already seen it) - 2 confirmations now so too late for that attempt:

Block #333825 (BTC Guild) - is there someone on Bitcointalk that is a contact for them?

Get eleuthria here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=9119
He's a great guy, and I'm sure he can offer you help.

[TheButterZone]

http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=btcguild&nick=ciyam

eleuthria's active there now if you want to forgo PMs.

[eleuthria]

Just confirm it's safe to do so and I can send 101 BTC back to the originating address.  Unfortunately a bit does get eaten up because PPLNS users on the pool are paid transaction fees (but only a minor percentage of users take part in PPLNS).

1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU is the originating address.

[CIYAM]

Just confirm it's safe to do so and I can send 101 BTC back to the originating address.  Unfortunately a bit does get eaten up because PPLNS users on the pool are paid transaction fees (but only a minor percentage of users take part in PPLNS).

1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU is the originating address.

That would be wonderful of you (losing 10 BTC is at least much better than losing 111 BTC).

I've sent a PM with a message and signature to prove I own it.

[eleuthria]

Just confirm it's safe to do so and I can send 101 BTC back to the originating address.  Unfortunately a bit does get eaten up because PPLNS users on the pool are paid transaction fees (but only a minor percentage of users take part in PPLNS).

1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU is the originating address.

That would be wonderful of you (losing 10 BTC is at least much better than losing 111 BTC).

I've sent a PM with a message and signature to prove I own it.

102 BTC returned in this transaction: http://blockchain.info/tx-index/42579467/4a0fe8cb78b19778a49d171642649c9ee25453ed206894c88b049d0ee7939a0f

I'd highly recommend not creating raw transactions in the future unless absolutely necessary .  $1,500 is a pretty risky mistake if it didn't land on a known pool wallet/IP.

[CIYAM]

102 BTC returned in this transaction: http://blockchain.info/tx-index/42579467/4a0fe8cb78b19778a49d171642649c9ee25453ed206894c88b049d0ee7939a0f

I'd highly recommend not creating raw transactions in the future unless absolutely necessary .  $1,500 is a pretty risky mistake if it didn't land on a known pool wallet/IP.

Very much appreciated - although I've been doing raw tx's without a problem for weeks I guess the exhaustion of working over 12 hours per day for the last week has clearly taken its toll.

I will certainly be "ultra-cautious" with all future raw tx's.

[niko]

Just confirm it's safe to do so and I can send 101 BTC back to the originating address.  Unfortunately a bit does get eaten up because PPLNS users on the pool are paid transaction fees (but only a minor percentage of users take part in PPLNS).

1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU is the originating address.

That would be wonderful of you (losing 10 BTC is at least much better than losing 111 BTC).

I've sent a PM with a message and signature to prove I own it.

This was an example of a chargeback I am perfectly comfortable with...   Glad it got worked out!

[Invictus]

Good guy eleuthria.

I'm glad I'm mining for BTCGuild 

[jl2012]

We all remember the case of bulanula (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=483.msg841913#msg841913) and more recently for BitcoinStore (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131678.0)

In both cases, someone mistakenly sent extra BTC to the alleged scammer. The sender obviously has full responsibility of the mistaken transaction. The alleged scammer then refused to return the BTC to the sender.

This case is similar, the only difference is that the receiver is unknown before the block is miner.

My questions are:

1. If the miner was found and refused to return the money, would he/she be labelled as scammer?

2. In this case, do those PPLNS users have the responsibility to return the extra earning?

3. If I mistakenly sent money to a donation address of someone, is he/she obliged to return to me?

[Maged]

My questions are:

1. If the miner was found and refused to return the money, would he/she be labelled as scammer?

I would say no.

2. In this case, do those PPLNS users have the responsibility to return the extra earning?

They can for the sake of good will, but they wouldn't be responsible to do so.

3. If I mistakenly sent money to a donation address of someone, is he/she obliged to return to me?

No, because it was a donation.

In the BitcoinStore case, a scammer tag was never given, so I can't say for sure what would have happened there, but even with that there was a huge difference between that issue and the bulanula issue.

With bulanula, the overage was sent as part of a business transaction that was both already expected and negotiated prior to the transaction. Because of that, it was absolutely clear that a typo had been made when the amount that was sent was 10x what was expected. In addition, the sender was able to prove that they were the same person who negotiated the transaction.

With BitcoinStore, the additional transaction came later after the original agreement was settled. Because of this, there is no clear indicator that the amount was a typo, since no balance had been owed for over 22 hours. At that point, the receiver very well might have used the address for another purpose since nothing more was expected to arrive regarding the negotiated transaction. One such purpose may have been as a donation address. And that's where this story gets even weaker, because this was actually an address that BitcoinStore gave to someone else to pay to, meaning that they have no easy way to prove that they own the address and that what they said actually may have happened.

[jl2012]

My questions are:

1. If the miner was found and refused to return the money, would he/she be labelled as scammer?

I would say no.

2. In this case, do those PPLNS users have the responsibility to return the extra earning?

They can for the sake of good will, but they wouldn't be responsible to do so.

3. If I mistakenly sent money to a donation address of someone, is he/she obliged to return to me?

No, because it was a donation.

In the BitcoinStore case, a scammer tag was never given, so I can't say for sure what would have happened there, but even with that there was a huge difference between that issue and the bulanula issue.

With bulanula, the overage was sent as part of a business transaction that was both already expected and negotiated prior to the transaction. Because of that, it was absolutely clear that a typo had been made when the amount that was sent was 10x what was expected. In addition, the sender was able to prove that they were the same person who negotiated the transaction.

Would you see paying transaction fee is also a type of business transaction: I pay you fee, and you confirm my transaction. 111BTC is obviously a 222000x overpayment of the commonly agreed default 0.0005BTC fee.

[Invictus]

Wrong adress, wrong number, wrong whatever....

if you do that with bitcoin your only hope is that someone nice got it.

double check small transactions
triple check big transactions

[Polvos]

LOL.

Did you see guys? And that's the way someone, very politely, could launder 101 tainted coins only paying 10 BTC for it.

Just kidding. You were very lucky P2pool or mistery miner didn't get it

[CIYAM]

Just kidding. You were very lucky P2pool or mistery miner didn't get it

Yes indeed and also if I hadn't managed to get most of it back I think my wife would have been about ready to throw my computer out the window.

[Ente]

102 BTC returned in this transaction: http://blockchain.info/tx-index/42579467/4a0fe8cb78b19778a49d171642649c9ee25453ed206894c88b049d0ee7939a0f

I'd highly recommend not creating raw transactions in the future unless absolutely necessary .  $1,500 is a pretty risky mistake if it didn't land on a known pool wallet/IP.

Happily noticed..
Way to go!

Ente

[jl2012]

Wrong adress, wrong number, wrong whatever....

if you do that with bitcoin your only hope is that someone nice got it.

double check small transactions
triple check big transactions

The same for cash and most fungible property like gold (bitcoin is fungible property, too)