256: absurdly-high-fee

[Peke]

It's not my transaction, but would like to know if someone has knowledge if there's something to be done to get this broadcasted to blockchain? Problem is that this transaction has numerous childs (unconfirmed funds spent on chain.so), so naturally those are also invalid if this does not get sorted out.

250 inputs, 2 outputs, 0.13090840 fee. Is the fee really too high or just the transaction data itself (~150kB)?

Validation Error: BitcoindException(super=com.neemre.btcdcli4j.core.BitcoindException: Error #-26: 256: absurdly-high-fee, code=-26)

https://chain.so/api/v2/tx/BTC/4f73aa9bcb84722d83402fef30232f9239c2581546368e5ec68eb4d33765512c

E: Sorry, noticed that I posted in the wrong section. Maybe a moderator could move this to Bitcoin Technical Support? Thanks

[1713571085]

1713571085

[1713571085]

1713571085

[achow101]

The transaction is just extremely large and thus has to pay a high fee. The actual fee rate is pretty low, but Bitcoin Core has a hard limit for what it considers to be an absurdly high fee. That limit is 0.1. Any transaction that pays more than 0.1 BTC in transaction fees, regardless of the fee rate, will be rejected with this error. It is not consensus invalid, it is just non-standard.

[warningsigns]

Almost $2000 just for fees? That's insanely high.

On a side note, I came across a thread about Segwit-supported wallets and was wondering if they really help keep fees low. When using such wallets, will the more economical fee affect the speed of confirmation? Or is it identical to transactions performed on non-Segwit wallets? If it's just as fast, is it because certain blocks are used for Segwit transactions? If anyone can shed light to this, thanks a lot.

Which wallets support Segwit? I want to start using one, preferably a stable and trusted wallet with private keys known to the user only.

 

[Peke]

The transaction is just extremely large and thus has to pay a high fee. The actual fee rate is pretty low, but Bitcoin Core has a hard limit for what it considers to be an absurdly high fee. That limit is 0.1. Any transaction that pays more than 0.1 BTC in transaction fees, regardless of the fee rate, will be rejected with this error. It is not consensus invalid, it is just non-standard.

Thanks for your insight. When thinking about it, if fees continue to go up at this rate, we'll propably encounter this problem more and more in the future.

[bob123]

On a side note, I came across a thread about Segwit-supported wallets and was wondering if they really help keep fees low. When using such wallets, will the more economical fee affect the speed of confirmation? Or is it identical to transactions performed on non-Segwit wallets? If it's just as fast, is it because certain blocks are used for Segwit transactions? If anyone can shed light to this, thanks a lot.

The pro of segwit is: It makes transactions smaller.
While you still have to pay the same feerate (x sat/B), you will (overall) pay less for your transaction (about 20-30% for P2SH-P2WPKH addresses [starting with 3...] - and even more for bech32 [starting with bc1..].
You can basically think of segwit as the 'removal of redundant information'. This makes transactions smaller -> Fees lower.
Unfortunately bech32 aren't accepted for withdrawals from most of the exchanges yet. But you still can always recieve/send your funds!

Which wallets support Segwit? I want to start using one, preferably a stable and trusted wallet with private keys known to the user only.

I would suggest electrum (https://electrum.org/#download) as a light weight wallet with some quite impressive features. Electrum supports both types of segwit addresses.
For 'maximum compability' you should use the nested P2SH addresses (starting with 3.. ). If you are more into saving fees / not really dependent on exchange withdrawals: bech32 would be the way to go!
For hardware wallets: Ledger/Trezor support segwit. Not sure about KeepKey.