Bitcoin Forum
May 09, 2024, 07:07:44 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Unconfirmed transactions  (Read 2182 times)
mexxer-2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1005


4 Mana 7/7


View Profile
March 01, 2016, 08:42:03 AM
 #21

I'm not exactly know how to do this. With electrum i cannot do it, than i tried coinB.in. Problem there was, i have to give in a transaction No., so i not really understand this. Why not making a new Transaction no.? I tried with the old one but anyway, nothing cause forward. To complicated this stuff for an average user.
Not sure if Electrum gives you a possiblity to double-spend it(FYI, you have to include it with high fees). Try contacting shorena, he's the guy in these situations
1715281664
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715281664

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715281664
Reply with quote  #2

1715281664
Report to moderator
Even in the event that an attacker gains more than 50% of the network's computational power, only transactions sent by the attacker could be reversed or double-spent. The network would not be destroyed.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1715281664
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715281664

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715281664
Reply with quote  #2

1715281664
Report to moderator
RaginglikeaBoss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 302
Merit: 250

Never before 11 P.M.


View Profile WWW
March 01, 2016, 08:46:50 AM
 #22

If the fee was not high enough it can take a long time or it will return to your wallet in 1-4 days i guess

I choose not to use 0.12.0 but if he sent it with that client it will eventually timeout.  I forget the exact time it will take to clear from the nodes mempool but I believe it's 3-4 days. 

shorena
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1520


No I dont escrow anymore.


View Profile WWW
March 01, 2016, 10:59:41 PM
 #23

If the fee was not high enough it can take a long time or it will return to your wallet in 1-4 days i guess

I choose not to use 0.12.0 but if he sent it with that client it will eventually timeout.  I forget the exact time it will take to clear from the nodes mempool but I believe it's 3-4 days. 

Thats just for the transactions of others, currently its very likely that a node running for some time hits the 300 MB TX limit. This does not affect the TX create with the node though.

Im not really here, its just your imagination.
squall1066
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2310
Merit: 1032


View Profile
March 02, 2016, 07:02:55 PM
 #24

yes, I currently have 3 transactions at nearly 2BTC not confirmed for nearly 20 hours now, It is announced on blockchain and legit.

2 are outgoing, 1 is incoming.

I have since sent a transaction with maximum fee and it still took 2 1/2 hours lol. so my wallet is still working.

Other than waiting, nothing else to do?
--Encrypted--
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1007

hee-ho.


View Profile
March 02, 2016, 07:17:11 PM
 #25

yes, I currently have 3 transactions at nearly 2BTC not confirmed for nearly 20 hours now, It is announced on blockchain and legit.

2 are outgoing, 1 is incoming.

I have since sent a transaction with maximum fee and it still took 2 1/2 hours lol. so my wallet is still working.

Other than waiting, nothing else to do?

you can double spend the outgoing transactions if you have the required resources to do that successfully (which I'm still not clear what.).
or stop broadcasting them so that the btc will return to your wallet. you still need to wait though.

but I suspect you already know these.
piotr_n
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2053
Merit: 1354


aka tonikt


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2016, 07:31:56 PM
 #26

RBF suddenly starts making sense, doesn't it?
funny how many people were resisting the deployment of this feature, while now they are going to be the first ones to use it Smiley

Check out gocoin - my original project of full bitcoin node & cold wallet written in Go.
PGP fingerprint: AB9E A551 E262 A87A 13BB  9059 1BE7 B545 CDF3 FD0E
jl777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1132


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2016, 07:41:27 PM
 #27

RBF suddenly starts making sense, doesn't it?
funny how many people were resisting the deployment of this feature, while now they are going to be the first ones to use it Smiley
the anti-RBF peoples say it will kill zeroconf, but I cant figure out when you would ever want to combine zeroconf and a non-permanent sequenceid. It seems those two are not a good idea at all to mix.

The RBF property of making the entire tx RBF enabled, if just one of the inputs enables it, combined with the entire bitspace of sequenceid (other 2 reserved) seems like we changed sequenceid to mean RBF. Cant think of when you would use non-RBF for a CSV/CLTV but not sure it would never be.

James

http://www.digitalcatallaxy.com/report2015.html
100+ page annual report for SuperNET
piotr_n
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2053
Merit: 1354


aka tonikt


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2016, 07:52:14 PM
 #28

unconfirmed bitcoins are worthless.
I'd never take them as a payment, no matter the sequence number.

people who think they can build a profitable business with unconfirmed bitcoin transactions are lunatics.
unless they are to profit from stealing the money, by fooling others into accepting zero-conf transactions.

Check out gocoin - my original project of full bitcoin node & cold wallet written in Go.
PGP fingerprint: AB9E A551 E262 A87A 13BB  9059 1BE7 B545 CDF3 FD0E
jl777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1132


View Profile WWW
March 03, 2016, 02:44:56 AM
 #29

unconfirmed bitcoins are worthless.
I'd never take them as a payment, no matter the sequence number.

people who think they can build a profitable business with unconfirmed bitcoin transactions are lunatics.
unless they are to profit from stealing the money, by fooling others into accepting zero-conf transactions.
So even an unconfirmed with a 0xffffffff sequenceid is too risky in your view.

Am I correct in concluding that an unconfirmed with a non-permanent sequenceid is even riskier, so any such usage combining zeroconf and RBF is insane?

James

http://www.digitalcatallaxy.com/report2015.html
100+ page annual report for SuperNET
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!