Block 496057 30 BTC in fees.

[richardsNY]

I was wondering what may have caused this entity to include insane fees with 2 transactions that could have been sent and confirmed with far lower fees.

http://blockr.io/block/info/469057

This transaction has 16.952 BTC in fees -- http://blockr.io/tx/info/cb95ab3aef378c14bc59d0db682d96202b981c1f8fad7d66e23e0be06f2a00c4

This transaction has 10.769 BTC in fees -- http://blockr.io/tx/info/8e12a1aba87e4657f5fabec1121ed57f706805ad6d4ffe88c6fce78596bd9b75

Bixin is the pool that mined this block.

[-ck]

Whenever you see something like that it's someone screwing up with their transactions. The biggest one I can remember is someone putting 90BTC in fees instead of output. In most cases like this they contacted the pool who mined the block and provided evidence of them owning the transaction and got refunded.

[TryNinja]

Probably just a mistype? That's the same as 0.32 BTC per kB, 77 times the current recommended fee of 420000 satoshis/kB.

This kind of mistake already happened before, like this one: https://blockchain.info/tx/6fe69404e6c12b25b60fcd56cc6dc9fb169b24608943def6dbe1eb0a9388ed08 with a fee of 15.68 BTC.

[lottery248]

Whenever you see something like that it's someone screwing up with their transactions. The biggest one I can remember is someone putting 90BTC in fees instead of output. In most cases like this they contacted the pool who mined the block and provided evidence of them owning the transaction and got refunded.

that means most of the high transaction fee are because of the mistakes? that would be a failure if the block reward gone to the unknown miners.

Probably just a mistype? That's the same as 0.32 BTC per kB, 77 times the current recommended fee of 420000 satoshis/kB.

This kind of mistake already happened before, like this one: https://blockchain.info/tx/6fe69404e6c12b25b60fcd56cc6dc9fb169b24608943def6dbe1eb0a9388ed08 with a fee of 15.68 BTC.

yeah, saw someone paid 2.5 btc in a single transaction fee once, forgot what that was.

[-ck]

that would be a failure if the block reward gone to the unknown miners.

That's correct, they would be screwed. Additionally there are even known pools that distribute their reward automatically to all their miners and it would be impossible to get hundreds and possibly thousands of miners to return their proportion of the wrong fee. One should just be appropriately careful with their own money...

[GreenBits]

Whenever you see something like that it's someone screwing up with their transactions. The biggest one I can remember is someone putting 90BTC in fees instead of output. In most cases like this they contacted the pool who mined the block and provided evidence of them owning the transaction and got refunded.

Yezzir. I was about to say ' it's a sign of the times', but this looks like a sxrewup. It's a rare common error for folks to exchange the fields for the send amount and the fees, perhaps that is what happened here. Let's see who claims this error, and if the pool that processed the block feels generous btc is worth a lot now, the warm fuzzy of returning a misspent fee might be mitigated by the capital loss

[hardtime]

Yeah, I highly doubt the pool is going to come out and refund this sort of transaction, it really doesn't matter what kind of evidence the guy who made the translation comes out with. That's a shit ton of money and I wouldn't want to give it up, as sad as it is to say, I'd rather keep the money to myself and my miners to keep them with me.

Kinda sad that something like this happened but I guess this is the way and the luck that goes around with a currency that can't be refunded, people sometimes get lucky and others get completetly fucked for making a simple mistype / mistke.

RIP MONIES FOR THIS DUDE.

[RoommateAgreement]

Yeah, I highly doubt the pool is going to come out and refund this sort of transaction,

why are you "highly doubting" it? it is not like this is the first time. it has happened before, multiple times. and i know at least of 3 occasions where miners were contacted and they paid the user back.

one of them made a topic in this board last month.
another was that 90BTC -ck said.
and another one was that ~200BTC fee.

[digaran]

It is intentional, they are obviously mixing tainted coins, you know that all the fees will be given to the miner with the block reward as a single and small transaction, just check how those 2 transactions which are paying 32K sats/B are very close to the time of the block being found. now lets see if any body could track those melted Bitcoins.

[pooya87]

It is intentional, they are obviously mixing tainted coins, you know that all the fees will be given to the miner with the block reward as a single and small transaction, just check how those 2 transactions which are paying 32K sats/B are very close to the time of the block being found. now lets see if any body could track those melted Bitcoins.

if true that would be the most idiotic way of mixing coins!
because first of all you can not possibly know who is going to mine the transaction, even of the miner has a large percentage of the hashrate. and besides if it is in fact mixing and the miner pays them back, they will publish it in public and even if they don't it is easy to contact the miners and ask them to publish the transaction!

also the time is very close because that transaction has a very high priority! if it was paying 1000 satoshi per byte it would have been the same time too.

[-ck]

first of all you can not possibly know who is going to mine the transaction, even of the miner has a large percentage of the hashrate.

Unless the transaction was never broadcast and was directly inserted into the miner's work for [insert nefarious reason here].

[pooya87]

first of all you can not possibly know who is going to mine the transaction, even of the miner has a large percentage of the hashrate.

Unless the transaction was never broadcast and was directly inserted into the miner's work for [insert nefarious reason here].

very good point and that is true.
but not in this case blockchain.info shows both a time of receiving the transaction with their node, visible by the +2 minute and also an IP address belonging to the node they received the transaction from, the first time.


if the transaction was never broadcast (or in case of screenshot below their node rejected it). then it would have shown 0 as its time (the time is block's timestamp) and also 0.0.0.0 as the IP. because they never had it in their inventory and are just showing what they see in the block.

[PrinceCaspian]

Whenever you see something like that it's someone screwing up with their transactions. The biggest one I can remember is someone putting 90BTC in fees instead of output. In most cases like this they contacted the pool who mined the block and provided evidence of them owning the transaction and got refunded.

Is it really possible? That mining pools can refund the fees that are sent by mistake?And how can you contact those mining pool in the other hand.I have read some people also putting wrong input fees and ouput amount thats a common case in some people

[Vixmore]

I was wondering what may have caused this entity to include insane fees with 2 transactions that could have been sent and confirmed with far lower fees.

http://blockr.io/block/info/469057

This transaction has 16.952 BTC in fees -- http://blockr.io/tx/info/cb95ab3aef378c14bc59d0db682d96202b981c1f8fad7d66e23e0be06f2a00c4

This transaction has 10.769 BTC in fees -- http://blockr.io/tx/info/8e12a1aba87e4657f5fabec1121ed57f706805ad6d4ffe88c6fce78596bd9b75

Bixin is the pool that mined this block.

Definitely a mistake. That amount of fees is absurd and the sender obviously didn't mean to do it. Hopefully he managed to contact the pool that mined it and got a refund. Otherwise, rip his Bitcoin. But I really don't understand how people can be dumb enough to do something like this. It is not that hard to double check your transaction and realise that you have put in a huge amount of fees. It just completely boggles my mind that people manage to do this.

[Script3d]

Whenever you see something like that it's someone screwing up with their transactions. The biggest one I can remember is someone putting 90BTC in fees instead of output. In most cases like this they contacted the pool who mined the block and provided evidence of them owning the transaction and got refunded.

Is it really possible? That mining pools can refund the fees that are sent by mistake?And how can you contact those mining pool in the other hand.I have read some people also putting wrong input fees and ouput amount thats a common case in some people

yes its possible to refund your fees that has been accidentally high , i think you can find the email or support on their website you just gotta find it  , about wrong input fees i only seen rich people wrongfully put the fee

[-ck]

I've only seen rich people wrongfully put the fee

Well you've got to have 30BTC in the first place to be able to add that much by mistake

[digaran]

There are also some obvious spam or whatever you could call it transactions with same fees like 400.14sats/B or 312.54sats/B and many other transactions but they are all in one day and most of the high paying fee transactions are within half an hour from the block found time, I really don't know and it's a question for myself, how could they know they are going to find a block?

That's a question when it comes to the mixing theory, that's what it is just a theory which I picked up from others lol.
By looking at some tx in the first block posted by OP I could see there are 400sats/B and even higher broadcasted an hour before the block being mined, it just shows that really there is a high traffic of legit txs paying high fees but miners are short handed and can't really do anything other than including the highest paying fees.

I assume miners want nothing more than the ability to swallow 50K txs and include them in 1 block, 8MB rings any bell?
BU rings any bell?

[BitHodler]

first of all you can not possibly know who is going to mine the transaction, even of the miner has a large percentage of the hashrate.

Unless the transaction was never broadcast and was directly inserted into the miner's work for [insert nefarious reason here].

I think it's more something in the way of getting some publicity. I remember that not long ago a pool mined a block with an insane fee, where the miners connected to the pool all got a small chunk of it.

The pool in question had no option to take the fee back since it was paid out already. They paid the person responsible for the mistaken fee out of their own pocket.

People think it was more a publicity stunt rather than an act of goodwill.

[JL421]

Probably just a mistype? That's the same as 0.32 BTC per kB, 77 times the current recommended fee of 420000 satoshis/kB.

This kind of mistake already happened before, like this one: https://blockchain.info/tx/6fe69404e6c12b25b60fcd56cc6dc9fb169b24608943def6dbe1eb0a9388ed08 with a fee of 15.68 BTC.

Omg for a 6 btc transaction the person added 15btc as fees. I can't really imagine how many bitcoins he actually has and making a mistake like this is utter bullshit. People need to check 10 times before
About the topic he did sent with a fees of 30 btc but if you see the amount , it is 10k btc which is actually a lot and if the transaction doesn't has sufficient fees he will end up losing everything. 30 btc is perfect for this transaction according to me

[richardsNY]

I have been looking for ways to find out how a transaction was set up, but I'm not coming very far. Is it even possible to know how transactions have been set up, and by what client it is done? One thing is sure, in order to mess up with fees like that, you'll need to have a decent number of coins sitting in your wallet. I personally hint towards an entity (likely a miner) that was testing out things, and on purposely included such fees. As -ck said -- without broadcasting this transaction in order to mine it directly himself.

Edit -- I overlooked a few things. It seems that this transaction wasn't mined directly by the miner as the transaction has been pushed into the public. It would require the miner to have a massive amount of luck in order to mine his own test transaction.