Bitcoin is slowly shit.

[Ephebus]

First, congratulations to the trolls who have bank accounts that charge no fees because they're very wealthy or whatever other reason. Second, a "please get lost" to the other trolls bashing the OP because he was playing at whatever casino he wanted to play at.

Now let's get back to the problem in question: the OP's transaction disappeared from blockchain.info, and he hasn't received his Bitcoins. Did they return to the casino's address they were sent from? With the transaction information gone, how do we know for sure what happened to the Bitcoins?

[Birdy]

OK, so considering a situation like this: someone sends Bitcoins and doesn't include a transfer fee. What happens to those Bitcoins if the network "decides" not to deliver them to the destination address? Are they returned to the sender?

Good question. Anybody knows an answer?

They were never sent in the first place then and are still on the old address.
(might only be that some clients don't show them, because they are marked as "reserved to be sent")
Bitcoins are never "lost in cyberspace" they are always on a Bitcoin address.

[Itcher]

First, congratulations to the trolls who have bank accounts that charge no fees because they're very wealthy or whatever other reason. Second, a "please get lost" to the other trolls bashing the OP because he was playing at whatever casino he wanted to play at.

Now let's get back to the problem in question: the OP's transaction disappeared from blockchain.info, and he hasn't received his Bitcoins. Did they return to the casino's address they were sent from? With the transaction information gone, how do we know for sure what happened to the Bitcoins?

OPs title was "Bitcoin is slowly shit." not "my transaction disappeared from blockchain.info". Who are you to call people troll who complain about slowliness and fees of bitcoin?

Sorry, if you are not willing to hear this. But both - slowliness and fees - are problems.

[marcovaldo]

Slow is fine, as long as it confirms.
I am still waiting for 10 days for 0.02 btc to confirm (just moving from one wallet to an other)....

[Ephebus]

OK, so considering a situation like this: someone sends Bitcoins and doesn't include a transfer fee. What happens to those Bitcoins if the network "decides" not to deliver them to the destination address? Are they returned to the sender?

Good question. Anybody knows an answer?

They were never sent in the first place then and are still on the old address.
(might only be that some clients don't show them, because they are marked as "reserved to be sent")
Bitcoins are never "lost in cyberspace" they are always on a Bitcoin address.

That makes a lot of sense. But isn't it kind of pointless for a client to generate a transaction number for a transaction that is never going to occur? That's what's confusing me. And from what the OP said, it seems that at some point the transaction was showing on blockchain.info.

[Birdy]

That makes a lot of sense. But isn't it kind of pointless for a client to generate a transaction number for a transaction that is never going to occur? That's what's confusing me. And from what the OP said, it seems that at some point the transaction was showing up on blockchain.info.

The client creates a transaction number and broadcasts the transaction, so that miners can grab and include them (and blockchain can show the transaction), but until it's included in a block the Bitcoins didn't move.

You see the blockchain points to an address x and says "the 3 Bitcoins are there" and including the transaction in a block moves the pointer "the 3 bitcoins are there at address y"
The Bitcoins are never really "sent", so they cannot be lost. They are either on address x or y.

[greyhawk]

OK, so considering a situation like this: someone sends Bitcoins and doesn't include a transfer fee. What happens to those Bitcoins if the network "decides" not to deliver them to the destination address? Are they returned to the sender?

Good question. Anybody knows an answer?

They were never sent in the first place then and are still on the old address.
(might only be that some clients don't show them, because they are marked as "reserved to be sent")
Bitcoins are never "lost in cyberspace" they are always on a Bitcoin address.

That makes a lot of sense. But isn't it kind of pointless for a client to generate a transaction number for a transaction that is never going to occur? That's what's confusing me. And from what the OP said, it seems that at some point the transaction was showing on blockchain.info.

If you look in the other thread, you'll see what happened that a transaction was sent out that relied on a previous unconfirmed transaction. The second transaction was rejected and removed from the network.

[nicholasd]

I had the same issue transfering a few bitcents from my MtGox account, That little pesky checkbox doesn't look checked even when it is when I'm on my Ubuntu box

[nildram]

There are four (possibly more, depending on if there's an even longer chain than I can quickly see displayed) unconfirmed inputs with below-recommended fees. That transaction will probably disappear from the queue before it ever goes through.

Do you mean that it might never actually go through?

[greyhawk]

There are four (possibly more, depending on if there's an even longer chain than I can quickly see displayed) unconfirmed inputs with below-recommended fees. That transaction will probably disappear from the queue before it ever goes through.

Do you mean that it might never actually go through?

No, it has already been rejected completely. See also the other thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=293554.0

[Ephebus]

OK, so considering a situation like this: someone sends Bitcoins and doesn't include a transfer fee. What happens to those Bitcoins if the network "decides" not to deliver them to the destination address? Are they returned to the sender?

Good question. Anybody knows an answer?

They were never sent in the first place then and are still on the old address.
(might only be that some clients don't show them, because they are marked as "reserved to be sent")
Bitcoins are never "lost in cyberspace" they are always on a Bitcoin address.

That makes a lot of sense. But isn't it kind of pointless for a client to generate a transaction number for a transaction that is never going to occur? That's what's confusing me. And from what the OP said, it seems that at some point the transaction was showing on blockchain.info.

If you look in the other thread, you'll see what happened that a transaction was sent out that relied on a previous unconfirmed transaction. The second transaction was rejected and removed from the network.

The client creates a transaction number and broadcasts the transaction, so that miners can grab and include them (and blockchain can show the transaction), but until it's included in a block the Bitcoins didn't move.

So, in a nutshell: the Bitcoins were sent from an address belonging to the casino and blockchain.info showed the transaction until it was rejected by the network because of insufficient fees. That way, the Bitcoins remain in the casino's original wallet. Now it's up to the casino operators to verify that and, if they're honest, correct the OP's balance on their site or send the Bitcoins again with enough fees. Correct?

[Birdy]

So, in a nutshell: the Bitcoins were sent from an address belonging to the casino and blockchain.info showed the transaction until it was rejected by the network because of insufficient fees.

Edit: see post below ^^

That way, the Bitcoins remain in the casino's original wallet. Now it's up to the casino operators to verify that and, if they're honest, correct the OP's balance on their site or send the Bitcoins again with enough fees. Correct?

Yes, that's correct.

[greyhawk]

So, in a nutshell: the Bitcoins were sent from an address belonging to the casino and blockchain.info showed the transaction until it was rejected by the network because of insufficient fees. That way, the Bitcoins remain in the casino's original wallet.

No, it has nothing to do with fees. The input to the transaction was taken from previous unconfirmed transactions. The network couldn't verify the input as existing as it is unconfirmed so the transaction was rejected. The casino will have to update their routines to handle building transactions correctly.

Now it's up to the casino operators to verify that and, if they're honest, correct the OP's balance on their site or send the Bitcoins again with enough fees. Correct?

That's correct.

[Ephebus]

No, it has nothing to do with fees. The input to the transaction was taken from previous unconfirmed transactions. The network couldn't verify the input as existing as it is unconfirmed so the transaction was rejected. The casino will have to update their routines to handle building transactions correctly.

That's great information. Do you know if something like that could happen if someone sent Bitcoins from the standard Bitcoin client with -paytxfee=0 ?

[greyhawk]

No, it has nothing to do with fees. The input to the transaction was taken from previous unconfirmed transactions. The network couldn't verify the input as existing as it is unconfirmed so the transaction was rejected. The casino will have to update their routines to handle building transactions correctly.

That's great information. Do you know if something like that could happen if someone sent Bitcoins from the standard Bitcoin client with -paytxfee=0 ?

I'm pretty sure the standard client will not let you send a transaction from unconfirmed inputs. But then again I have not tried.

[Birdy]

No, it has nothing to do with fees. The input to the transaction was taken from previous unconfirmed transactions. The network couldn't verify the input as existing as it is unconfirmed so the transaction was rejected. The casino will have to update their routines to handle building transactions correctly.

That's great information. Do you know if something like that could happen if someone sent Bitcoins from the standard Bitcoin client with -paytxfee=0 ?

Without basing it in unconfirmed inputs:
As far as I know the wallet would keep on broadcasting the transaction and try to get it through (and you wouldn't see the Bitcoins in there as they are marked as reserved for transaction). So you would have to screw around the wallet a bit to get rid of that.
That's more of a guess than knowing though ^^

I'm pretty sure the standard client will not let you send a transaction from unconfirmed inputs. But then again I have not tried.

When you do a transaction to an address within your wallet, you can send those Bitcoins again before the transaction is confirmed.

[Ephebus]

No, it has nothing to do with fees. The input to the transaction was taken from previous unconfirmed transactions. The network couldn't verify the input as existing as it is unconfirmed so the transaction was rejected. The casino will have to update their routines to handle building transactions correctly.

That's great information. Do you know if something like that could happen if someone sent Bitcoins from the standard Bitcoin client with -paytxfee=0 ?

Without basing it in unconfirmed inputs:
As far as I know the wallet would keep on broadcasting the transaction and try to get it through (and you wouldn't see the Bitcoins in there as they are marked as reserved for transaction). So you would have to screw around the wallet a bit to get rid of that.
That's more of a guess than knowing though ^^

That raises another interesting question: how to make that broadcasting stop in case the sender realizes he has set the transaction fee too low and wants to correct it?

[memvola]

i just lost ~ 370 USD

The casino has the coins. You need to contact them, give the transaction number and explain the situation. They have your money, and they have the obligation to re-initiate the transfer.

Edit: Also, as others have said, ALL blockchain based coins have the same mechanism, so it's not a Bitcoin specific thing. They made a bad transaction and the money never actually arrived.

[crazy_rabbit]

This should be moved to service discussion for the whatever Casino he was dealing with. This isn't a Bitcoin problem, it's user error on the part of the end user or the casino.

[Ephebus]

This should be moved to service discussion for the whatever Casino he was dealing with. This isn't a Bitcoin problem, it's user error on the part of the end user or the casino.

Yes, but on the other hand, the thread turned out very informative on a few aspects of the whole process of transactions and fees that many people have lots of doubts about, so I'd leave it here if it were up to me to decide.