[~1 BTC Bounty]

[nc50lc]

Yep, I get that - I'm talking about re-creating the wallet as it was (hopefully) before that TX occurred and (for want of a better description) creating a double spend via a TX that the nodes WILL process.

Hmm, I don't know what you're suggesting but AFAIK, there's no convenient way to reverse a transaction that was already included in the blockchain.
He's trying to spend a UTXO from the blockchain that can only be spent with a non-standard transaction.

[leventturksoy]

@nc50lc @Timelord2067

Out of curiosity, I created a transaction with a much lower fee (50k sats/b). Obviously its not being mined, but it seems like Blockcypher is putting its mining priority as high? I find it interesting that the numbers can be so drastically different when the fee is this much lower.

[nc50lc]

I think the "Miner Preference" is solely based from the fee/vbyte of your transaction, since it has a higher fee than the current highest fee, it's displayed as "high".
But it will still depend if a miner will pick-up your transaction.

The "Confidence" however, is based from their algorithm for the confidence factor: https://www.blockcypher.com/dev/bitcoin/#confidence-factor
That includes the fee rate, number of mempools that has the txn and other factors.

Can you click the "!" in the "confidence" to check how many nodes (that they see in average) have accepted your transaction?

[leventturksoy]

I think the "Miner Preference" is solely based from the fee/vbyte of your transaction, since it has a higher fee than the current highest fee, it's displayed as "high".
But it will still depend if a miner will pick-up your transaction.

The "Confidence" however, is based from their algorithm for the confidence factor: https://www.blockcypher.com/dev/bitcoin/#confidence-factor
That includes the fee rate, number of mempools that has the txn and other factors.

Can you click the "!" in the "confidence" to check how many nodes (that they see in average) have accepted your transaction?

It says 156 memory pools have the tx.

[Timelord2067]

@nc50lc @Timelord2067

Out of curiosity, I created a transaction with a much lower fee (50k sats/b). Obviously its not being mined, but it seems like Blockcypher is putting its mining priority as high? I find it interesting that the numbers can be so drastically different when the fee is this much lower.

I hope it works for you, I have a list of websites that [Guide] Broadcast Your RAW Transaction BTC & Alts coins - there aren't as many as a year ago, but if you can get the RAW transaction, then you should be able to broadcast it again.  (if you post the new RAW TX perhaps some people here can sendrawtransaction via their own wallets?)

Hope it works out for you.

[nc50lc]

Can you click the "!" in the "confidence" to check how many nodes (that they see in average) have accepted your transaction?

It says 156 memory pools have the tx.

As I thought, there're too few nodes that accepted that tx.
My mainnet test "uncompressed SegWit" transaction has the same behavior (140-170 mempools) and
I have been re-broadcast~ing it through blockcypher with no avail of being mined (as I expected).

Still, there's a very very slim chance.
Good luck!

[MrFreeDragon]

Just curios, this segwit address (with stuck 5.8BTC) was created based on uncompressed public key:
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/34dqaqvQNWMgbMJmmxVa8LeGz7St6ATT97

Is there exist another private with the compressed public key leads to the same segwit address?

[nc50lc]

Is there exist another private with the compressed public key leads to the same segwit address?

Theoretically, there might be.
Because there are more private keys than the total number of '3' addresses.
Here's a similar discussion, but about P2PKH: how many possible private keys can be generated for a public key

Since we're talking about P2SH here, there's also a chance that a different script might produce that address.

But take note that the numbers are too high for a collision to be possible.

[leventturksoy]

Can you click the "!" in the "confidence" to check how many nodes (that they see in average) have accepted your transaction?

It says 156 memory pools have the tx.

As I thought, there're too few nodes that accepted that tx.
My mainnet test "uncompressed SegWit" transaction has the same behavior (140-170 mempools) and
I have been re-broadcast~ing it through blockcypher with no avail of being mined (as I expected).

Still, there's a very very slim chance.
Good luck!

How can there be a slim chance? Should I keep re-broadcasting in hopes that a small miner would accept it?

[nc50lc]

How can there be a slim chance? Should I keep re-broadcasting in hopes that a small miner would accept it?

Yes,
Since 150+ nodes are still accepting it, there's a 'very very slim' chance that it will get into a mining nodes' mempool (that also accepts such transactions).
But re-broadcasting it after getting dropped isn't worth it, IMO.

[Timelord2067]

How can there be a slim chance? Should I keep re-broadcasting in hopes that a small miner would accept it?

If you post the RAW transaction I'll rebroadcast it where I can and I'm sure I'm not the only one who would given there are already ?? 150+ nodes still holding it in their mempool.

[malevolent]

Yes,
Since 150+ nodes are still accepting it, there's a 'very very slim' chance that it will get into a mining nodes's mempool (that also accepts such transactions).
But re-broadcasting it after getting dropped isn't worth it, IMO.

There needs to be at least one miner who is willing to mine other peoples' non-standard transactions in the first place. I'd keep posting about this all over the Internet in the hope that it goes viral at some point and someone gives him a hand.

[Timelord2067]

There needs to be at least one miner who is willing to mine other peoples' non-standard transactions in the first place. I'd keep posting about this all over the Internet in the hope that it goes viral at some point and someone gives him a hand.

Until that occurs, may I have the RAW transaction so that I can try broadcasting it in various places please?

[leventturksoy]

There needs to be at least one miner who is willing to mine other peoples' non-standard transactions in the first place. I'd keep posting about this all over the Internet in the hope that it goes viral at some point and someone gives him a hand.

Until that occurs, may I have the RAW transaction so that I can try broadcasting it in various places please?

Can you not use the raw transaction in the first post?

[leventturksoy]

Yes,
Since 150+ nodes are still accepting it, there's a 'very very slim' chance that it will get into a mining nodes's mempool (that also accepts such transactions).
But re-broadcasting it after getting dropped isn't worth it, IMO.

There needs to be at least one miner who is willing to mine other peoples' non-standard transactions in the first place. I'd keep posting about this all over the Internet in the hope that it goes viral at some point and someone gives him a hand.

How is it sneaking into any mempools at all?

[pooya87]

How is it sneaking into any mempools at all?

most probably the nodes accepting this transaction are running software other than bitcoin core as their full node and it doesn't reject (at least) this particular non-standard transaction type.

[nc50lc]

Can you not use the raw transaction in the first post?

It will get rejected due to another reason: "too high fees". That includes blockcypher.
He needs the one with the normal fee.

[Timelord2067]

Can you not use the raw transaction in the first post?

That's the "old" transaction (with the higher transaction fee) that gets rejected for a variety of fees (such as too high fee).

It will get rejected due to another reason: "too high fees". That includes blockcypher.

I've already tried posting that TX (see post from about a week ago which includes screen grabs of various nodes rejecting that TX)

How can there be a slim chance? Should I keep re-broadcasting in hopes that a small miner would accept it?

Yes,
Since 150+ nodes are still accepting it, there's a 'very very slim' chance that it will get into a mining nodes' mempool (that also accepts such transactions).
But re-broadcasting it after getting dropped isn't worth it, IMO.

I don't mind trying to broadcast the newer (lower fee paid) given there has been reports that the first TX has fallen out of the mempool and/or was never accepted in the first place.

He needs the one with the normal fee.

#Persistence

[leventturksoy]

Can you not use the raw transaction in the first post?

That's the "old" transaction (with the higher transaction fee) that gets rejected for a variety of fees (such as too high fee).

It will get rejected due to another reason: "too high fees". That includes blockcypher.

I've already tried posting that TX (see post from about a week ago which includes screen grabs of various nodes rejecting that TX)

How can there be a slim chance? Should I keep re-broadcasting in hopes that a small miner would accept it?

Yes,
Since 150+ nodes are still accepting it, there's a 'very very slim' chance that it will get into a mining nodes' mempool (that also accepts such transactions).
But re-broadcasting it after getting dropped isn't worth it, IMO.

I don't mind trying to broadcast the newer (lower fee paid) given there has been reports that the first TX has fallen out of the mempool and/or was never accepted in the first place.

He needs the one with the normal fee.

#Persistence

Okay, one with lower fee:

01000000000101c0ee957139541ad18cb3367a4dd0606bbc8c5bd1585ce64e813c5c21359e3f6e0 000000017160014ef3247d77adecb1f22692e899931e75e1a5cbb26ffffffff01e63d0423000000 0017a9146b4e110311345ba00ff2bb77d569e7f4a0651c6387024830450221008467643b0f6be6b 9c47020bbc824908b5b391a752e416fefcba597d2be1ad5db02200756619fe6db4bcd694dbee6e0 fdc332f06a7b187dd3de6e756c6f7c21d3bdde0141044b8d17d6f5fae04c9213da069f4e9fdd25d f5f567f867a6a957a850c45a602b788c4a699afacbca54cfc5ba0cd659f20575f2fb20eee6ed73c f8bb7dd95e3fd200000000

Just broadcasted it

I'll continue to rebroadcast it occasionally. If you re-broadcast it and it gets mined, I agree to pay you a $1000 reward.

[Timelord2067]

Okay, one with lower fee:

Code:

01000000000101c0ee957139541ad18cb3367a4dd0606bbc8c5bd1585ce64e813c5c21359e3f6e0000000017160014ef3247d77adecb1f22692e899931e75e1a5cbb26ffffffff01e63d04230000000017a9146b4e110311345ba00ff2bb77d569e7f4a0651c6387024830450221008467643b0f6be6b9c47020bbc824908b5b391a752e416fefcba597d2be1ad5db02200756619fe6db4bcd694dbee6e0fdc332f06a7b187dd3de6e756c6f7c21d3bdde0141044b8d17d6f5fae04c9213da069f4e9fdd25df5f567f867a6a957a850c45a602b788c4a699afacbca54cfc5ba0cd659f20575f2fb20eee6ed73cf8bb7dd95e3fd200000000

Just broadcasted it

Am broadcasting ...

Will retry every few hours for a while and post update of where I have posted it to as I go.

Code:

01000000000101c0ee957139541ad18cb3367a4dd0606bbc8c5bd1585ce64e813c5c21359e3f6e0000000017160014ef3247d77adecb1f22692e899931e75e1a5cbb26ffffffff01e63d04230000000017a9146b4e110311345ba00ff2bb77d569e7f4a0651c6387024830450221008467643b0f6be6b9c47020bbc824908b5b391a752e416fefcba597d2be1ad5db02200756619fe6db4bcd694dbee6e0fdc332f06a7b187dd3de6e756c6f7c21d3bdde0141044b8d17d6f5fae04c9213da069f4e9fdd25df5f567f867a6a957a850c45a602b788c4a699afacbca54cfc5ba0cd659f20575f2fb20eee6ed73cf8bb7dd95e3fd200000000

*edit

• https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/pushtx/ - Error validating transaction: Transaction with hash 7da3515aa3a7492b9e99ef95b7a3e7bbaf500c474de68b3dc4c756d18729abdd already exists..
  
• https://coinb.in/#broadcast - non-mandatory-script-verify-flag (Using non-compressed keys in segwit) (code 64)
• https://btc.com/tools/tx/publish - There was an error pushing your transaction to network! Did you sign your transaction? Is this double spend? Have you already sent this transaction?  (Which could be that node is seeing the first TX...)
• https://blockchain.info/pushtx - Code: -26, Error: non-mandatory-script-verify-flag (Using non-compressed keys in segwit)
• https://www.mocacinno.com/push.php - unsuccesfull, probably because some of the inputs for this tx were removed from the UTXO set (used in a confirmed transaction)
• https://www.smartbit.com.au/txs/pushtx - PUSH TRANSACTION ERROR: 64: NON-MANDATORY-SCRIPT-VERIFY-FLAG (USING NON-COMPRESSED KEYS IN SEGWIT)
• BitCoin Core (V16) - 64: non-mandatory-script-verify-flag (Using non-compressed keys in segwit) (code -26)
• BitCoin Core Ver 20.1 - bad-txns-inputs-missingorspent (code -25) Perhaps it's detecting the original TX ??
• https://btc.bitaps.com/broadcast - Broadcast transaction failed: non-mandatory-script-verify-flag (Using non-compressed keys in segwit) Having said that however, the page DID show the actual transaction which the others don't...

7th Nov - another edit...

I've found yet more broadcast raw transaction sites (will add to the above list later)

blockcypher seems perfectly ok re-accepting the TX - confidence 48.3 % (watch this space)




Original TX with high fee: https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5274/52740059.html