blockchaim deducted $100 fee for $112 transaction

[ranochigo]

I think if it is a huge amount, usually the miner who found the block will kindly return the fee to the sender. However, since the amount is less than 0.25BTC, the miner will just assume it was just normal. I guess it has already been distributed evenly to the pool.

That may be a lot of money to the person who lost it...

So, what if it was already distributed, can't they take it from new funds?

Of course they can. However, the pool has no obligations to do so. The pools and its miners are looking for profit and not running a charity. It is just absurd for them to take responsibility for a user's mistake while losing out on the profits. If it gets distributed(after a few blocks) for BTCC, there is no reason for them to refund it.

[alyssa85]

pls blockchain.info deducted $100 for fee, any idea on how to contact them to g eery this back
https://blockchain.info/tx/43fb8b97b21aae96c7bbb6724fc4ecb85f031aa5f75675de57bbb9b2895a7e6b

You won't be able to get it back.

Your problem is that you had an input at 2016-05-05 10:40:00 but immediately created an output at 2016-05-05 10:42:40. That is why the fee was so large.

You need to give your coins a chance to age and get priority. If you have an input of 1BTC it takes a day to age so you can send with low or no fee. If it is half a bitcoin, it takes 2 days, a quarter of a bitcoin, 4 days, and so on.

This is not like a bank debit card where you can make transactions instantly without aging.

[Snorek]

Bitcoin fees can be confusing for people - they are no constant as are based on number of inputs and outputs. Dust transaction is a major factor etc.
Unless owner of that wallet directly set high transfer fee (I am not sure if you can set it manually to certain number on blockchain.info, I know there are slider menu for that tho)
then I think it is valid fee based on bitcoin fee policy. You will never got it back.

[SebastianJu]

So OP would you explain where the failure of blockchain wallet was? They are automated so it is very unlikely that they accidentally used that fee. Ok, they have a lot of code problems but if they had then you would not be the only one complaining. So it looks like it was your error. On what reasons could you sue them then. For not disallowing you a free choice?

[alyssa85]

Bitcoin fees can be confusing for people - they are no constant as are based on number of inputs and outputs. Dust transaction is a major factor etc.
Unless owner of that wallet directly set high transfer fee (I am not sure if you can set it manually to certain number on blockchain.info, I know there are slider menu for that tho)
then I think it is valid fee based on bitcoin fee policy. You will never got it back.

That is because it is done in bytes rather than amounts.

You are right though - people find it confusing, which is why the original concept of people being their own bank won't work. Bitcoin will need coinbase and circle to take off, in order for it's use to become widespread.

[bitdumper]

The money is gone, it cant be returned . From next time use a wallet that automaticaly determines the fee. Never trust a web wallet. I personally use coinomi for my android and electrum on desktop.

[BitcoinSupremo]

If you cannot distinguish from the fee button and amount button, I suggest you start using wallets with dynamic fees which automatically adjust to the recommended fee. Electrum is such a wallet. Maybe its not blockchain.info fault this time, but for sure it is the worst of all the wallets out there and unfortunately is a widely used one.

[alani123]

OP, the transaction was included in a block mined by BTCC pool. Whoever sent the transaction should contact them if he wants the money back.

[SebastianJu]

OP, the transaction was included in a block mined by BTCC pool. Whoever sent the transaction should contact them if he wants the money back.

That might not work depending on how it was sent. I'm not sure but the default for blockchain wallets should be that the user controls the addresses but I think there were other options to send from addresses you don't own. But even then... it's open if they pay back.

[pedrog]

I think if it is a huge amount, usually the miner who found the block will kindly return the fee to the sender. However, since the amount is less than 0.25BTC, the miner will just assume it was just normal. I guess it has already been distributed evenly to the pool.

That may be a lot of money to the person who lost it...

So, what if it was already distributed, can't they take it from new funds?

Of course they can. However, the pool has no obligations to do so. The pools and its miners are looking for profit and not running a charity. It is just absurd for them to take responsibility for a user's mistake while losing out on the profits. If it gets distributed(after a few blocks) for BTCC, there is no reason for them to refund it.

You do realize it's not 'honest' money...

When someone messes up your change and you end up with more money do you take the money and think you deserve it because the cashier is too stupid to handle the money?

And also because you're not running a charity...


Fuckin' poor excuse of a human being!

[alyssa85]

OP, the transaction was included in a block mined by BTCC pool. Whoever sent the transaction should contact them if he wants the money back.

They sometime refund fat finger mistakes. But in this case, this was the correct fee. He tried to send coins that were just two minutes old, with just one confirmation. Of course the fee will be huge. You need to let your coins age, and only send old coins.

[SebastianJu]

OP, the transaction was included in a block mined by BTCC pool. Whoever sent the transaction should contact them if he wants the money back.

They sometime refund fat finger mistakes. But in this case, this was the correct fee. He tried to send coins that were just two minutes old, with just one confirmation. Of course the fee will be huge. You need to let your coins age, and only send old coins.

Where did you get that from? That's not true. The fee that is needed additionally because of the age is so small that it never could amount to this fee. Not possible.

It might be possible that he had a huge amount of small inputs. So that the transaction was huge at the end. The bigger the higher the price then.

[ranlo]

OP, the transaction was included in a block mined by BTCC pool. Whoever sent the transaction should contact them if he wants the money back.

They sometime refund fat finger mistakes. But in this case, this was the correct fee. He tried to send coins that were just two minutes old, with just one confirmation. Of course the fee will be huge. You need to let your coins age, and only send old coins.

Where did you get that from? That's not true. The fee that is needed additionally because of the age is so small that it never could amount to this fee. Not possible.

It might be possible that he had a huge amount of small inputs. So that the transaction was huge at the end. The bigger the higher the price then.

Uh, the info is right there in the link: 340 (bytes). There were two inputs and one output. He apparently set things up wrong somewhere.

[traderbit]

The only way i think is to contact them or trying to contact who mined that block, recently i have seen a worse transaction fee here: https://blockchain.info/tx/cc455ae816e6cdafdb58d54e35d4f46d860047458eacf1c7405dc634631c570d 291BTC as a fee for a 0.0001 transaction.

[SebastianJu]

OP, the transaction was included in a block mined by BTCC pool. Whoever sent the transaction should contact them if he wants the money back.

They sometime refund fat finger mistakes. But in this case, this was the correct fee. He tried to send coins that were just two minutes old, with just one confirmation. Of course the fee will be huge. You need to let your coins age, and only send old coins.

Where did you get that from? That's not true. The fee that is needed additionally because of the age is so small that it never could amount to this fee. Not possible.

It might be possible that he had a huge amount of small inputs. So that the transaction was huge at the end. The bigger the higher the price then.

Uh, the info is right there in the link: 340 (bytes). There were two inputs and one output. He apparently set things up wrong somewhere.

Ah right. Didn't check the actual transaction again. Only spoke about the theoretics how such a fee possibly could come into existence. From coin age not. That is for sure.

[ranlo]

OP, the transaction was included in a block mined by BTCC pool. Whoever sent the transaction should contact them if he wants the money back.

They sometime refund fat finger mistakes. But in this case, this was the correct fee. He tried to send coins that were just two minutes old, with just one confirmation. Of course the fee will be huge. You need to let your coins age, and only send old coins.

Where did you get that from? That's not true. The fee that is needed additionally because of the age is so small that it never could amount to this fee. Not possible.

It might be possible that he had a huge amount of small inputs. So that the transaction was huge at the end. The bigger the higher the price then.

Uh, the info is right there in the link: 340 (bytes). There were two inputs and one output. He apparently set things up wrong somewhere.

Ah right. Didn't check the actual transaction again. Only spoke about the theoretics how such a fee possibly could come into existence. From coin age not. That is for sure.

Yeah, coin age would be irrelevant. And a fee that big... even with a 1 MB transaction (let's say he filled the entire block) wouldn't be possible. It would be a bit lower than that (something like .21x).

[SebastianJu]

OP, the transaction was included in a block mined by BTCC pool. Whoever sent the transaction should contact them if he wants the money back.

They sometime refund fat finger mistakes. But in this case, this was the correct fee. He tried to send coins that were just two minutes old, with just one confirmation. Of course the fee will be huge. You need to let your coins age, and only send old coins.

Where did you get that from? That's not true. The fee that is needed additionally because of the age is so small that it never could amount to this fee. Not possible.

It might be possible that he had a huge amount of small inputs. So that the transaction was huge at the end. The bigger the higher the price then.

Uh, the info is right there in the link: 340 (bytes). There were two inputs and one output. He apparently set things up wrong somewhere.

Ah right. Didn't check the actual transaction again. Only spoke about the theoretics how such a fee possibly could come into existence. From coin age not. That is for sure.

Yeah, coin age would be irrelevant. And a fee that big... even with a 1 MB transaction (let's say he filled the entire block) wouldn't be possible. It would be a bit lower than that (something like .21x).

Didn't calculated it through but looks nearly as possible then with a price of $435 per bitcoin. It only would need alot of transactions that did not made it into a block yet...

But really, I think OP did simply an error.

[mobnepal]

You better contact the miner of that block: 410343 he have got those fee you have sended. Its completely your mistake bro and blockchain can't refund you those fees, they don't have any policy of refund and also actually they don't take any fees from you or users.