291.2409 BTC for a 0.0001 BTC transaction .

[DimensionZ]

Did Bitclub network get the entire amount of 291 Bitcoins in miner's fees or they got only a portion of it? If they return everything to the legitimate sender that would be amazing and a great example for the integrity of the Bitcoin community. Can anyone update us if there is something new as I can't check Twitter right now.

[Jeremycoin]

It seems like someone just mixed up the fee box and amount to send box, this must be the most unlucky day for him/her.

[pereira4]

So what happened then? I think this is really important that gets clarified. What the hell causes this? can anyone explain it in a clear way?

We can't be depending on people's benevolence to return funds. And once we have confidential transactions and coin join active it will not even be able to know what the hell happened. We need the increased privacy but we need to fix this too so this doesn't happen again.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Damn that is one hell of a bad day, that works out at over $135,000. Surely the mining pool will return that money.

Edit - Seems Bitclub Mining Pool is trying to source to sender, hope it all works out.

[lrdeoliveira]

Damn that is one hell of a bad day, that works out at over $135,000. Surely the mining pool will return that money.

Edit - Seems Bitclub Mining Pool is trying to source to sender, hope it all works out.

so, it's possible that who sent this transaction paid 291.2409 Btc of commission?    ;
  Cheaper than Western Union 

[yakuza699]

It's just a way to launder coins.

and just how do you know which miner is going to hit the block?

Send directly to the miner and the others will see it only after the block is mined.

And how will you do that?Even if you find pool's IP they are still broadcasting all transactions to the network(or are they not?).If you prove me wrong AND tell me how to broadcast transaction to only one pool whether it be Bitclub or other I will give you 0.02BTC.

[instacalm]

The man who recieves is a luckiest man in bitcoin history! I think he would be a millionare now, Very lucky guy

Huh, why?

291 BTC at current market price equals about 133'795$, it's definitely A LOT, but not millions.

[merelcoin]

It's just a way to launder coins.

and just how do you know which miner is going to hit the block?

Send directly to the miner and the others will see it only after the block is mined.

And how will you do that?Even if you find pool's IP they are still broadcasting all transactions to the network(or are they not?).If you prove me wrong AND tell me how to broadcast transaction to only one pool whether it be Bitclub or other I will give you 0.02BTC.

I'm not completely sure if i'm correct here, but i think the basic idear (one of the theories) was not that a thirth party was sending a transaction to the pool, but the pool owner creating a transaction and only keeping it in his own memory pool without broadcasting it to the network. This way, he would be the only one knowing about the transaction, so when his pool hit the next block, the "secret" transaction would be included, but no other pool/miner knew about the transaction, so they couldn't include it in a block.

It was just a theory, most probably this is not what happened.

I guess that would be possible, he (the pool owner) might have to hack into his nodes code, and recompile his binaries in order to be able to do this, but i don't think it would be impossible (but maybe a lot of work)

[alyssa85]

So what happened then? I think this is really important that gets clarified. What the hell causes this? can anyone explain it in a clear way?

We can't be depending on people's benevolence to return funds. And once we have confidential transactions and coin join active it will not even be able to know what the hell happened. We need the increased privacy but we need to fix this too so this doesn't happen again.

They got the fee box and amount box mixed up and put the wrong amounts in each. And unfortunately the wallet did not do any validation or give them a warning. This is a flaw in the wallet, and should be fixed - it's not hard to program a simple validation check where if the fee is larger than the amount you are sending you get a warning before you proceed. Or validate to compare the fee to the average fee, and if it is higher, issue a warning. This is not rocket science - online banking does validations to prevent user errors all the time.

[merelcoin]

So what happened then? I think this is really important that gets clarified. What the hell causes this? can anyone explain it in a clear way?

We can't be depending on people's benevolence to return funds. And once we have confidential transactions and coin join active it will not even be able to know what the hell happened. We need the increased privacy but we need to fix this too so this doesn't happen again.

They got the fee box and amount box mixed up and put the wrong amounts in each. And unfortunately the wallet did not do any validation or give them a warning. This is a flaw in the wallet, and should be fixed - it's not hard to program a simple validation check where if the fee is larger than the amount you are sending you get a warning before you proceed. Or validate to compare the fee to the average fee, and if it is higher, issue a warning. This is not rocket science - online banking does validations to prevent user errors all the time.

earlyer in this topic, shorena  already pointed out that a lot of wallets already have this kind of validation.

:

Use a better wallet. E.g. Electrum shows a pop up before you send the already signed(!) TX. Not by default but it can be set if you are the kind of person that is likely to send 200 BTC as fee. Bitcoin core outright refuses to send TX with a fee over a certain amount. 0.1 BTC IIRC. Im sure many other wallets have protection against this as well.

[Denker]

It seems like someone just mixed up the fee box and amount to send box, this must be the most unlucky day for him/her.

I wanted to write the same.
This is the first thing which came in my mind.
Poor guy, I feel with him. Hope this can get solved.It is a lot of money!

[Hide_ip112]

I don't understand how this could happen. I would argue that this is likely to occur due to incorrect Input do should they write 291 BTC bTC to the intended recipients and 0.0001 BTC is for shipping, he was entering it in the wrong place. If this is the case then that person could be experiencing depression severe enough and most likely he'll do silly stuff because of the way he did.

[Amph]

Its better not a mistake,   

they should really add a warning in bitcoin, when you use suffix like m or u, because you can get confused easily

a warning that stop you if you are paying more than the recommended fee

[DimensionZ]

Yeah I don't know how such a transaction was allowed to go through. I have used a lot of online Bitcoin wallets and every time there would be options to select low medium or high fees depending on how fast one would want their transaction to get confirmations. Why would anyone want to input custom fees for such a huge amount is beyond me. The sender should have just used the highest fee by default and proceed with it.

[merelcoin]

Yeah I don't know how such a transaction was allowed to go through. I have used a lot of online Bitcoin wallets and every time there would be options to select low medium or high fees depending on how fast one would want their transaction to get confirmations. Why would anyone want to input custom fees for such a huge amount is beyond me. The sender should have just used the highest fee by default and proceed with it.

I tinker with the fees quite often (using electrum), but usually to make them lower (when i'm moving funds between wallets, there's no need to get a confirmation within the next hour... day... whatever).
If a confirmation is stuck for a long time, and i need the funds, i can always create a double spend with a much higher fee to speed things up.

But, i also use the same trick as Shorena mentioned: i use electrum to display my transaction, manually click sign, manually click "broadcast", so i have 2 validation points before a transaction is broadcasted.

[LLec]

I don't understand how this could happen. I would argue that this is likely to occur due to incorrect Input do should they write 291 BTC bTC to the intended recipients and 0.0001 BTC is for shipping, he was entering it in the wrong place. If this is the case then that person could be experiencing depression severe enough and most likely he'll do silly stuff because of the way he did.

One the worst error in btc error this is the only explanation !

[From Above]

ouch that kinda hurts

~CfA~

[Razick]

It was mined by the BitClub pool. They are seeking to return the money if someone can prove they sent the transaction: http://www.coindesk.com/accidental-136000-bitcoin-mining-pool/

[rinhunter]

very very big mistake. I have two possibilities.
1. this is first time in bitcoin transactions.
2. sent in a drunken state.

[alyssa85]

So what happened then? I think this is really important that gets clarified. What the hell causes this? can anyone explain it in a clear way?

We can't be depending on people's benevolence to return funds. And once we have confidential transactions and coin join active it will not even be able to know what the hell happened. We need the increased privacy but we need to fix this too so this doesn't happen again.

They got the fee box and amount box mixed up and put the wrong amounts in each. And unfortunately the wallet did not do any validation or give them a warning. This is a flaw in the wallet, and should be fixed - it's not hard to program a simple validation check where if the fee is larger than the amount you are sending you get a warning before you proceed. Or validate to compare the fee to the average fee, and if it is higher, issue a warning. This is not rocket science - online banking does validations to prevent user errors all the time.

earlyer in this topic, shorena  already pointed out that a lot of wallets already have this kind of validation.

:

Use a better wallet. E.g. Electrum shows a pop up before you send the already signed(!) TX. Not by default but it can be set if you are the kind of person that is likely to send 200 BTC as fee. Bitcoin core outright refuses to send TX with a fee over a certain amount. 0.1 BTC IIRC. Im sure many other wallets have protection against this as well.

So they were using an out of date wallet?