WHY can't I send funds from my wallet

[RobertRibbeck]

I've got 3.75btc I want to transfer to MtGox

I'm getting some bs error from bit coin-Qt that is preventing any xfer of funds to below 3.5

I had 5btc and was able to sent mtgox 1.25btc    but NOT ANYTHING more

WTF

[John (John K.)]

I've got 3.75btc I want to transfer to MtGox

I'm getting some bs error from bit coin-Qt that is preventing any xfer of funds to below 3.5

I had 5btc and was able to sent mtgox 1.25btc    but NOT ANYTHING more

WTF

Please quote the 'bs error' here, otherwise how on earth can we help you on this?

[RobertRibbeck]

transaction creation failed

I've got 3.75btc I want to transfer to MtGox

I'm getting some bs error from bit coin-Qt that is preventing any xfer of funds to below 3.5

I had 5btc and was able to sent mtgox 1.25btc    but NOT ANYTHING more

WTF

Please quote the 'bs error' here, otherwise how on earth can we help you on this?

[deepceleron]

I agree, it is a B.S. error.
It really should say "insufficient funds to cover the cost of the transaction and all associated fees".

Code:

if (nValue + nFeeRequired > GetBalance())
    strError = strprintf(_("Error: This transaction requires a transaction fee of at least %s because of its amount, complexity, or use of recently received funds!"), FormatMoney(nFeeRequired).c_str());
[b]else[/b]
    strError = _("Error: Transaction creation failed!");

It gets to "transaction creation failed" only if the balance equal to or more than value + fee. The transaction has failed for some other reason.

[DannyHamilton]

It gets to "transaction creation failed" only if the balance equal to or more than value + fee. The transaction has failed for some other reason.

Yeah, I see that.  I really need to pay closer attention to the direction of that > symbol.

Looks like there are a variety of potential issues:

Too many really tiny outputs in your wallet could result in a transaction that is too big (This is the most likely problem):

Code:

if (nBytes >= MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN/5) return false;

Otherwise:

Perhaps a failure signing the inputs?

Code:

if (!SignSignature(*this, *coin.first, wtxNew, nIn++)) return false;

Or an issue selecting the coins to be used?

Code:

if (!SelectCoins(nTotalValue, setCoins, nValueIn)) return false;

[RobertRibbeck]

Guess you Cant read   or maybe 3.75btc isn't enough to cover a 2.5 btw xransfer to MtGox

I agree, it is a B.S. error.
It really should say "insufficient funds to cover the cost of the transaction and all associated fees".

Code:

if (nValue + nFeeRequired > GetBalance())
    strError = strprintf(_("Error: This transaction requires a transaction fee of at least %s because of its amount, complexity, or use of recently received funds!"), FormatMoney(nFeeRequired).c_str());
[b]else[/b]
    strError = _("Error: Transaction creation failed!");

[DannyHamilton]

Guess you Cant read   or maybe 3.75btc isn't enough to cover a 2.5 btw xransfer to MtGox

Prior to you posting this I had already pointed out that I made a mistake looking at the direction of the > symbol, and I had already deleted that errant post.

As for the fee, if your wallet is filled with extremely small outputs, then it can most certainly require a fee larger than 1.25 BTC to send 2.5 BTC.

I believe the fee is 0.0005 per kilobyte?

So, if that 2.5 BTC is made up of more than 2,500 inputs, you can't send it.

As I pointed out in my update, the more likely problem is that the transaction is too big.

If the transaction has so many inputs that it is larger than 100 kilobytes, you can't send it.  Since a typical input is larger than 40 bytes, you'll run into the maximum transaction size before you run out of funds for the fee.

[Brunt, FCA]

I have a similar problem to this.
I tried to send the contents of my wallet, around 600 mBTC, consisting of around 2900 bitdust transactions, and received the message:
Error: Transaction creation failed!
I understand the reason.

As I pointed out in my update, the more likely problem is that the transaction is too big.
If the transaction has so many inputs that it is larger than 100 kilobytes, you can't send it.  Since a typical input is larger than 40 bytes, you'll run into the maximum transaction size before you run out of funds for the fee.

What is the best way to deal with this?

[BookLover]

If you send smaller transactions to yourself you can combine the dust transactions and create larger inputs.  This may not work if the dust inputs are to small.

[Brunt, FCA]

If you send smaller transactions to yourself you can combine the dust transactions and create larger inputs.

OK, I've sent the largest amount that I was able (200 mBTC, with a fee of 16 mBTC) to a new address in my wallet. If I try to move any of the remainder, it will be largely eaten up by high fees.

It seems to me that this problem is going to affect tens of thousands of users who are frantically collecting as much bitdust as they can from all the free BTC websites. They will end up with a large balance that will be difficult or impossible to spend.

[deepceleron]

If you send smaller transactions to yourself you can combine the dust transactions and create larger inputs.

OK, I've sent the largest amount that I was able (200 mBTC, with a fee of 16 mBTC) to a new address in my wallet. If I try to move any of the remainder, it will be largely eaten up by high fees.

It seems to me that this problem is going to affect tens of thousands of users who are frantically collecting as much bitdust as they can from all the free BTC websites. They will end up with a large balance that will be difficult or impossible to spend.

Solution, warn suckers not to frequent sites that dust your wallet with unspendable crap in exchange for making you click on ads at an earning rate that translates to about $0.01 an hour.

[RobertRibbeck]

If you send smaller transactions to yourself you can combine the dust transactions and create larger inputs.

OK, I've sent the largest amount that I was able (200 mBTC, with a fee of 16 mBTC) to a new address in my wallet. If I try to move any of the remainder, it will be largely eaten up by high fees.

It seems to me that this problem is going to affect tens of thousands of users who are frantically collecting as much bitdust as they can from all the free BTC websites. They will end up with a large balance that will be difficult or impossible to spend.

Solution, warn suckers not to frequent sites that dust your wallet with unspendable crap in exchange for making you click on ads at an earning rate that translates to about $0.01 an hour.

It's not that simple
by 2040 when all coins have been produced transactions that small will be common
the current pay/transfer is way out of wack
demanding exorbitant fees for less than a min of computer time is a crime

[Brunt, FCA]

I made a second transfer to my new address of 110 mBTC, and the fee was 31 mBTC!
I experimented with a third transfer of 50 mBTC, but the fee would have been 40 mBTC, so I didn't go ahead with it.
Would it help at all if I left the remainder, about 245 mBTC, to age for some time?
I didn't realise that the 'bitdust problem' would be this bad.
At the moment I feel as though the contents of my wallet are being held for ransom!
How do other users deal with the problem of consolidating many small bitdust transactions into a usable amount, without paying very high fees?
This almost seems like a flaw in the Bitcoin system, that Mr Nakamoto didn't consider when he designed the original protocol.

[Birdy]

I haven't tried it yet, but this seems to be the solution to your problems:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144331.0

I think you could bundle up some of the dust everytime you send a bigger transaction. (or just bundle up some dust if possible).

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
This almost seems like a flaw in the Bitcoin system, that Mr Nakamoto didn't consider when he designed the original protocol.

No flaw.  Mr. Nakamoto made it clear from the very beginning that it was expected that mining would be supported by transaction fees.  Since bytes of space in the block is the limited resource that drive the miners to be selective in their transactions to maintain profitability, it should have been clear to anyone that very large transactions (lots of dust) of very low value would be prohibitively expensive to create.

Consumers are welcome to refuse to engage with entities that send dust.  In time, competitors that allow users to build balances over time consolidating value and then trigger transactions sending single larger amounts will find more willing clients.  As a consumer you get to make those choices for yourself.  You also have the opportunity to create a better business model and drive the competition out of business.

[Brunt, FCA]

As a relative newcomer to the Bitcoin scene, I will allow myself to be guided by my betters, but I am still a bit upset that all those hours spent clicking on things on the free BTC websites produced payments that are worth far less in reality than I thought they would be.

[DannyHamilton]

As a relative newcomer to the Bitcoin scene, I will allow myself to be guided by my betters, but I am still a bit upset that all those hours spent clicking on things on the free BTC websites produced payments that are worth far less in reality than I thought they would be.

Yes, I'd be pretty upset with the creators of those sites for luring me in with false hope as well if I were you.

They make no effort to educate their visitors to the limitations of the payouts they provide.

I wouldn't give up hope though.  If bitcoin grows in popularity, the exchange rate is likely to climb.  Eventually, the minimum required transaction fee (as expressed in terms of bitcoins) is likely then to be reduced.  You may find in a few months (or years) that the contents of the wallet can be easily spent with minimal fees (or perhaps even no fees at all).

In the future, if a well written coin-control wallet becomes available, it may be possible to consolidate the dust contents of the wallet as well.

[RobertRibbeck]

As a relative newcomer to the Bitcoin scene, I will allow myself to be guided by my betters, but I am still a bit upset that all those hours spent clicking on things on the free BTC websites produced payments that are worth far less in reality than I thought they would be.

Yes, I'd be pretty upset with the creators of those sites for luring me in with false hope as well if I were you.

They make no effort to educate their visitors to the limitations of the payouts they provide.

Let me get this straight

paying in fractional btc is not cool and reason to get upset
but charging 2 or more times the amount your are transferring for a minutes computer time to do the transfer is OK

guess I'll stop mining and just rob people to do transfers

[Rodyland]

As a relative newcomer to the Bitcoin scene, I will allow myself to be guided by my betters, but I am still a bit upset that all those hours spent clicking on things on the free BTC websites produced payments that are worth far less in reality than I thought they would be.

Yes, I'd be pretty upset with the creators of those sites for luring me in with false hope as well if I were you.

They make no effort to educate their visitors to the limitations of the payouts they provide.

Let me get this straight

paying in fractional btc is not cool and reason to get upset
but charging 2 or more times the amount your are transferring for a minutes computer time to do the transfer is OK

guess I'll stop mining and just rob people to do transfers

It's not a minute's worth of computer time.  Your transaction, all that dust being spent, will be stored by the network FOR EVER.  Any time someone downloads a full blockchain for a brand new full-node, they will have to store and process that giant dust transaction.  That is the reason the fees are what they are.

[RobertRibbeck]

As a relative newcomer to the Bitcoin scene, I will allow myself to be guided by my betters, but I am still a bit upset that all those hours spent clicking on things on the free BTC websites produced payments that are worth far less in reality than I thought they would be.

Yes, I'd be pretty upset with the creators of those sites for luring me in with false hope as well if I were you.

They make no effort to educate their visitors to the limitations of the payouts they provide.

Let me get this straight

paying in fractional btc is not cool and reason to get upset
but charging 2 or more times the amount your are transferring for a minutes computer time to do the transfer is OK

guess I'll stop mining and just rob people to do transfers

It's not a minute's worth of computer time.  Your transaction, all that dust being spent, will be stored by the network FOR EVER.  Any time someone downloads a full blockchain for a brand new full-node, they will have to store and process that giant dust transaction.  That is the reason the fees are what they are.

so the network does the work with their computers with no compensation
and the fee goes to who...
I gotta become the "who"  get paid lots of bit coin for letting everyone else do the work