Sent 7 transactions via Electrum and 5 disappeared?

[Its About Sharing]

I just started running Electrum on my desktop computer (moved the Bitcoin QT client to a linux box to act as a full node).
I sent 7 small transactions (around .002 btc) to 7 paper wallets (spreading the word!). I saw all 7 transactions listed as pending (I believe) and next time I checked
5 had disappeared and 1 of the 2 remaining removed the name in the description field (recipient) and replaced it with the public key (which I changed back.)
I sent one after the other (well, maybe 1 minute or so in between.) I wasn't charged of course, the btc fractions are back in Electrum.

I started again and slowed things down and noticed the first one got a confirmation, now working on the second.

Is there a 3rd party involved with the send (e.g. an Electrum Server) or is the Electrum wallet actually handling things?

thanks,
IAS

[1714167529]

1714167529

[1714167529]

1714167529

[1714167529]

1714167529

[1714167529]

1714167529

[Abdussamad]

This is indeed strange.

The transaction is sent to an electrum server to be broadcast. Most likely what happened is that the fees were too low so the transactions never confirmed. In future you can save money on transaction fees by using this option:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=451707.msg4982576#msg4982576

[Its About Sharing]

This is indeed strange.

The transaction is sent to an electrum server to be broadcast. Most likely what happened is that the fees were too low so the transactions never confirmed. In future you can save money on transaction fees by using this option:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=451707.msg4982576#msg4982576

Thanks for the reply and I'll check that link. But I did send fees of .0001, so I think that is standard.
I re-input the transactions and they worked 2nd time around. (But it once again dropped the name I put in on one of them and put in the public key - odd).

Thanks again,
IAS

[Abdussamad]

This is indeed strange.

The transaction is sent to an electrum server to be broadcast. Most likely what happened is that the fees were too low so the transactions never confirmed. In future you can save money on transaction fees by using this option:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=451707.msg4982576#msg4982576

Thanks for the reply and I'll check that link. But I did send fees of .0001, so I think that is standard.
I re-input the transactions and they worked 2nd time around. (But it once again dropped the name I put in on one of them and put in the public key - odd).

Thanks again,
IAS

I am not sure whether this is related to what you are facing. But I suggest holding off on transactions for the moment until this clears.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=460457.0

Double check the addresses you sent to on a blockexplore site like blockchain.info to find out if you ended up sending twice the amount you intended to.

[Its About Sharing]

Thanks Abdussamad, I did read that thread - certainly an interesting day and I've missed the excitement during our recent "stability".

I was transmitting really small amounts as I said, so it was a good test so to speak.

BTW - I did what you suggested via that link, was quite easy to do the bulk transfer (to 12 wallets). The only bad part is I can't track the individual addresses now (by name - they are my students) to see who cashes out first!

Thanks again,
IAS

[ThomasV]

if you had 7 outgoing transactions that were simultaneously pending, then it is very likely that some of them were using unconfirmed inputs, (the change outputs of other unconfimed tx) .
the current malleability attack on the bitcoin network, when it affects a transaction, invalidates those inputs, because it affects the tx hash.

[Its About Sharing]

if you had 7 outgoing transactions that were simultaneously pending, then it is very likely that some of them were using unconfirmed inputs, (the change outputs of other unconfimed tx) .
the current malleability attack on the bitcoin network, when it affects a transaction, invalidates those inputs, because it affects the tx hash.

I read up a little on what you said, correct me if I'm wrong, but if those coins were sitting in my Electrum wallet for a bit, then they were confirmed inputs, right?
From what I understand, an unconfirmed input would be if I received a coin and then spent it quickly before that original input could be confirmed?

Thanks in advance and reverse, 
IAS