Unconfirmed transaction lasting ~12h with fees.

[WikileaksDude]

2013-11-01 13:06:41 ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : not enough fees c07d47a5e1d023d0fd2c47c600a4ca178c7a2954754c88f3fb7f729bafb94539, 340000 < 350000

piuk: If you have the getrawtransaction style tx, I'll push it through on Eligius.

Frustrating it's only 0.0001 BTC out. If you are able to that would be great: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=uV10H0M6

Piuk, thanks!

But this was a fee error from blockchain.info I ajusted according to it... and it still missed  0.0001. Hopefully this won't happen to more people.

[wizkid057]

2013-11-01 13:06:41 ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : not enough fees c07d47a5e1d023d0fd2c47c600a4ca178c7a2954754c88f3fb7f729bafb94539, 340000 < 350000

piuk: If you have the getrawtransaction style tx, I'll push it through on Eligius.

Frustrating it's only 0.0001 BTC out. If you are able to that would be great: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=uV10H0M6

Np. It should confirm in Eligius's next block. (Edit: Done in block 267335)

Might I suggest adding a public getrawtransaction equiv for blockchain.info?

[gmaxwell]

Might I suggest adding a public getrawtransaction equiv for blockchain.info?

Yea, we would have been able to help JimJones in IRC if that existed.

Also, — roundup!

[Jouke]

2013-11-01 13:06:41 ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : not enough fees c07d47a5e1d023d0fd2c47c600a4ca178c7a2954754c88f3fb7f729bafb94539, 340000 < 350000

piuk: If you have the getrawtransaction style tx, I'll push it through on Eligius.

Frustrating it's only 0.0001 BTC out. If you are able to that would be great: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=uV10H0M6

Np. It should confirm in Eligius's next block. (Edit: Done in block 267335)

Might I suggest adding a public getrawtransaction equiv for blockchain.info?

+1

[piuk]

Np. It should confirm in Eligius's next block. (Edit: Done in block 267335)

Might I suggest adding a public getrawtransaction equiv for blockchain.info?

Thanks. You can now request hex format e.g.

https://blockchain.info/tx/c07d47a5e1d023d0fd2c47c600a4ca178c7a2954754c88f3fb7f729bafb94539?format=hex

Also, — roundup!

Also, divide the tx size by 1000 bytes rather than 1024

[Cryddit]

Just a note here but I think that basing fees on tx size, while technically accurate, is too opaque for mainstream users.   Fees IMO ought to be based on some measure that they can easily see and understand knowing no more than the amounts they're transferring, the same way sales taxes are in most jurisdictions.

If the tx fees were to be an ultra-simple 0.1% of the transaction, rounded to a MicroCoin,  I think we'd get a lot less confusion and mistakes, and miners would get about the same amount in fees. 

'Cos here, the "low fees" obstruction was based on tx size divided by 1000 and the fee estimation was based on tx size divided by 1024 - But Joe and Jane end-user have no idea what a tx size is if it isn't the amount of money they're transferring in the first place.

[Abdussamad]

'Cos here, the "low fees" obstruction was based on tx size divided by 1000 and the fee estimation was based on tx size divided by 1024 - But Joe and Jane end-user have no idea what a tx size is if it isn't the amount of money they're transferring in the first place.

Why did you try to set the fee manually? Normally you set the fee rate, say 0.0001, and let client take care of the actual fee based on the size of the transaction.

[deepceleron]

The basic issue with this transaction is it didn't pay the minimum fees. This transaction activated every spam prevention feature there is:

1. The transaction was 34235 bytes; the fee is 0.0001 BTC per kB (not KiB) but this transaction paid 34x, not 35x minfee. Transactions with less than the minimum are considered the same as zero-fee by Bitcoin. They are not relayed across the Bitcoin network.

2. If free transactions make it to a miner, default Bitcoin has a small area of a block for including some free transactions if block is less than 27kB when received. This transaction is bigger than the whole free area - only transactions under 10kB in size are even considered.

3. The priority (based on total weighted coin age by value) was too low to be considered for any fee-free inclusion. This transaction was a whole bunch of dust, plus 25 BTC; the 25BTC had just recently been received by the wallet. If the contents of the wallet had been allowed to age for a few days, they likely could have been sent for free.

Blockchain.info is mostly at fault, they shouldn't let users do stupid things, and should calculate (and enforce) the exact minimum fee Bitcoin-qt would use. It also helps if users don't spam up their own wallets with dust.

Bitcoin doesn't easily allow web applications to figure out what the correct/current fee is; it needs an RPC feature I will call "sendtoaddressfee", where bitcoin txouts are not spent, but reserved, and the fee amount is returned. When the same bitcoin amount is actually spent, the transaction is constructed from the reserved bitcoins txouts; any other transaction besides the original clears the reservation.

[Cryddit]

All of that is true.  Now, did you have a point?

Good luck explaining to Joe and Jane end-user that the fee for transferring a given amount is going to be different every time and will depend on things they can't even see.  They will tell you that's stupid, without even wanting to learn why you think the fees should be different.

[User705]

This seems to be one of the major bitcoin future issues.  Is bitcoin meant to be used to buy your morning coffee or is it meant to be as a large wealth transfer mechanism.  Tech question, can dust still be sent free or is there a minimum fee that makes that impossible?

[Rluner]

Big gz.

228 confirmations.

[WikileaksDude]

Big gz.

228 confirmations.

yea but if it wasn't for the help of some #bitcoin-dev users and #eligius fellas, it would still be unconfirmed/pending.

Hope gavin addresses to the fees system :p

[Rluner]

Big gz.

228 confirmations.

yea but if it wasn't for the help of some #bitcoin-dev users and #eligius fellas, it would still be unconfirmed/pending.

Hope gavin addresses to the fees system :p

Yes I had realised that. Ty to the users that helped him.