[~1 BTC Bounty]

[leventturksoy]

Can be this issue reproduced on testnet?

It already has been (successfully):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5278860.0

[leventturksoy]

The total value has now surpassed 6 figures USD and I still cannot get in touch with a miner who will have no trouble mining this non-standard transaction.

[MrFreeDragon]

The total value has now surpassed 6 figures USD and I still cannot get in touch with a miner who will have no trouble mining this non-standard transaction.

Who knows, may be this stuck due to incorrect public key will make for you a good investment decision to hold bitcoin during its jump up to 100kUSD per 1 BTC. And later during its jump from 100kUSD up to 500kUSD per 1 BTC your issue will be resolved.

It is like an external factor forcing you to hold bitcoin and not change it to fiat...

[leventturksoy]

The total value has now surpassed 6 figures USD and I still cannot get in touch with a miner who will have no trouble mining this non-standard transaction.

Who knows, may be this stuck due to incorrect public key will make for you a good investment decision to hold bitcoin during its jump up to 100kUSD per 1 BTC. And later during its jump from 100kUSD up to 500kUSD per 1 BTC your issue will be resolved.

It is like an external factor forcing you to hold bitcoin and not change it to fiat...

In some sense, yeah that is true. It's definitely gone up since I sent it into the address by alot. On the other hand, I could have invested it into altcoins or projects that would have multiplied the USD value even further. It isn't all too bad... but I am worried that BTC/USD price will drop significantly before I can get the BTC out so at this point I am doing my best to put it into my own full control.

[malevolent]

Who knows, may be this stuck due to incorrect public key will make for you a good investment decision to hold bitcoin during its jump up to 100kUSD per 1 BTC. And later during its jump from 100kUSD up to 500kUSD per 1 BTC your issue will be resolved.

The problem with this logic is that as the price of BTC continues to increase, so does the value of a block with transaction fees. And since the issue is mining pools being unwilling to change settings due to fear of losses, the economics of risk might not change until OP's transaction fee (+ the reward) surpasses the value of a block reward with transaction fees. We're more than one halving away from that.

[icopress]

The problem with this logic is that as the price of BTC continues to increase, so does the value of a block with transaction fees. And since the issue is mining pools being unwilling to change settings due to fear of losses, the economics of risk might not change until OP's transaction fee (+ the reward) surpasses the value of a block reward with transaction fees. We're more than one halving away from that.

All right, but what if you look at the problem from a marketing point of view?

Alternatively, OP must enlist the support of one of the well-known members of the crypto community, so that he, in turn, on ^Twitter challenges one of the mining pools. Let's say that such a person can become Charlie Lee, aka @satoshilite / Forum username Coblee. He has almost a million Twitter followers and I would characterize Charlie as a very responsive person.

I do not think that the binance/pool or anyone else will ignore the public appeal. If you present information from the right angle, then this can be a good news lead for them "we are the ones who solved a non-standard problem" (It's about mining pools or companies that represent them).

[leventturksoy]

The problem with this logic is that as the price of BTC continues to increase, so does the value of a block with transaction fees. And since the issue is mining pools being unwilling to change settings due to fear of losses, the economics of risk might not change until OP's transaction fee (+ the reward) surpasses the value of a block reward with transaction fees. We're more than one halving away from that.

All right, but what if you look at the problem from a marketing point of view?

Alternatively, OP must enlist the support of one of the well-known members of the crypto community, so that he, in turn, on ^Twitter challenges one of the mining pools. Let's say that such a person can become Charlie Lee, aka @satoshilite / Forum username Coblee. He has almost a million Twitter followers and I would characterize Charlie as a very responsive person.

I do not think that the binance/pool or anyone else will ignore the public appeal. If you present information from the right angle, then this can be a good news lead for them "we are the ones who solved a non-standard problem" (It's about mining pools or companies that represent them).

As I've seen so far, not a single person out of the dozens I've contacted has given a single shit about my funds, even with what I think is a compelling reward for such an easy task.

[abadon666999]

hi sir ...i am working for you
i am in contact with more pool
i have riceving 1 good response from PRIVATE POOL...
if i resolve your problem by THIS POOL i ask for the bounty...
Hello, I am offering up to 1 BTC to help recover my funds. The situation is as this: 5.87750550 BTC is stuck. I am offering 0.277 BTC as a miner fee, and up to 0.7 BTC to a person(s) who can help me retrieve it.
i ask you confirm to procede for resolve your situation..thanks
have a good day
ps..how much is the bounty for me if i resolve your situation?
1000€  ...2000 € ...
i wait for your answer by message..
please check private message

[Timelord2067]

I'm getting a "Server Error (500)" when I attempt to rebroadcast via https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/pushtx/ - is anyone else having this issue.

[nc50lc]

I'm getting a "Server Error (500)" when I attempt to rebroadcast -snip-

I have tried to broadcast my sample transaction few minutes ago and it's working for that transaction.
Here's the link: https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/cedecdb6413f8f69489ec201b8cd03de08d92e8776b0a61e6a3ff9ef44f21614/

But I'm getting the same error when I tried with leventturksoy's 'normal fee raw transaction'.

[Timelord2067]

I'm getting a "Server Error (500)" when I attempt to rebroadcast -snip-

I have tried to broadcast my sample transaction few minutes ago and it's working for that transaction.
Here's the link: https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/cedecdb6413f8f69489ec201b8cd03de08d92e8776b0a61e6a3ff9ef44f21614/

I clicked on your link and this is what I saw:



... three dialogue boxes say the transaction was broadcast (but I never sent it)

But I'm getting the same error when I tried with leventturksoy's 'normal fee raw transaction'.

Thanks for trying.

Perhaps blockcypher needs a Bex, a cup of tea and a good lie down reset?

[MrFreeDragon]

I really can not understand why are you trying here broadcast the transaction through simple pushtx services. The issue is in bitcoin address creation, as the TC used uncompressed public key for segwit address creation (it was said here several times).
That means that broadcasting the transaction to different nodes will not work in this case. They use the same protocol and can not accept the non-standard transaction.

So what is the reason for pushing tx to bitcoin network through different nodes?

[bitmover]

Perhaps blockcypher needs a Bex, a cup of tea and a good lie down reset?

Error 500 is a server side error. So something wrong there, not in your side.

I tried to write a wrong transaction HEX to see if the same error returns, but it checks if it can't decode the HEX. (a blue alert popped up)

So I think blockcypher successfully decoded your transaction hex but as it was invalid, a very rare condition, there was no exception for this error and it returned a server error.

[leventturksoy]

I really can not understand why are you trying here broadcast the transaction through simple pushtx services. The issue is in bitcoin address creation, as the TC used uncompressed public key for segwit address creation (it was said here several times).
That means that broadcasting the transaction to different nodes will not work in this case. They use the same protocol and can not accept the non-standard transaction.

So what is the reason for pushing tx to bitcoin network through different nodes?

Certain nodes not running Bitcoin Core allow for non-standard transactions. Although the odds of one of these nodes mining a block is incredibly slim, it's still worth taking a shot at since the BTC sum here is considerable.

So, it's not impossible/pointless, just very unlikely.

[MrFreeDragon]

I really can not understand why are you trying here broadcast the transaction through simple pushtx services. The issue is in bitcoin address creation, as the TC used uncompressed public key for segwit address creation (it was said here several times).
That means that broadcasting the transaction to different nodes will not work in this case. They use the same protocol and can not accept the non-standard transaction.

So what is the reason for pushing tx to bitcoin network through different nodes?

Certain nodes not running Bitcoin Core allow for non-standard transactions. Although the odds of one of these nodes mining a block is incredibly slim, it's still worth taking a shot at since the BTC sum here is considerable.

So, it's not impossible/pointless, just very unlikely.

Ok, makes sense.
However you posted the signed transaction to move funds from stuck address 34dqaqvQNWMgbMJmmxVa8LeGz7St6ATT97 to your another address 3MN8FMhwPJcGRC5zEQL1UcQZC3YxmtB5k9, and you can't be sure who is the successful "tx pusher" in case the transaction is accepted and confirmed by the network.

It is better to create a separate signed transaction to move funds from stuck address to your target new address AND bitcoin address of the "tx pusher". In case of success you will have your funds on your new address, and the "tx pusher" will receive his bounty to his bitcoin address (as both outputs will be in the same transaction).

EDIT: corrected spelling

[Coding Enthusiast]

Certain nodes not running Bitcoin Core allow for non-standard transactions.

Most alternative nodes are either built on top of bitcoin core or are translated line-by-line from bitcoin core which means they do exactly what core does.
I sent the tx to the nodes with the following user agents, some of them rejected it but most didn't reply (same behavior as core since reject messages were removed):

Code:

Statoshi
CKCoind
btcwire/btcd -> rejects (reason= using uncompressed pubkey)
BitcoinUnlimited -> rejects as bad txns
therealbitcoin.org -> these are some broken ass nodes that violate the P2P protocol but some seem to be accepting it
KIT-DSN -> rejects (reason= using uncompressed pubkey)
bcoin -> terminates connection

[LoyceV]

It is better to create a separate signed transaction to move funds from stuck address to your target new address AND bitcoin address of the "tx pusher". In case of success you will have your funds on your new address, and the "tx pusher" will receive his bounty to his bitcoin address (as both outputs will be in the same transaction).

That's a bad idea. It's likely these funds will be stuck for many more years, and each signed transaction will remain equally valid. Once a signed transaction is out there, it can't be invalidated until OP manages to move his funds.
Besides, it will mean trying to double spend on top of the current problem.

[BrewMaster]

It is better to create a separate signed transaction to move funds from stuck address to your target new address AND bitcoin address of the "tx pusher". In case of success you will have your funds on your new address, and the "tx pusher" will receive his bounty to his bitcoin address (as both outputs will be in the same transaction).

That's a bad idea. It's likely these funds will be stuck for many more years, and each signed transaction will remain equally valid. Once a signed transaction is out there, it can't be invalidated until OP manages to move his funds.
Besides, it will mean trying to double spend on top of the current problem.

even if this method was desired a better bitcoin-ier way would be to use the cryptography option that bitcoin already offers.
the goal is to make two outputs, one to the owner and one to the one who claims the reward. that is the very definition of SIGHASH_SINGLE. you sign the input and the corresponding output of it (the fist output since there is only one input) and set the amount of it to the (total input value - tx fee - reward) then the person claiming the reward simply adds the new output equal to (reward) amount and then submits it to the block.

[Timelord2067]

OK, am back in business - https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/7da3515aa3a7492b9e99ef95b7a3e7bbaf500c474de68b3dc4c756d18729abdd/ (every time I've re-broadcast it, the "confidence" has always been at or above 47-51%) - it looks like the error was only a temporary thing.

Fees are much lower now as evidenced by this guide: https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/ (it's a guide people)

Besides, it will mean trying to double spend on top of the current problem.

The OP's already "double spent" these funds as there's a "fee too high" version and the current one I've been bumping without success.  Have a look at the unedited version of the OP, the  rawtransaction look very similar to each-other.

[MrFreeDragon]

It is better to create a separate signed transaction to move funds from stuck address to your target new address AND bitcoin address of the "tx pusher". In case of success you will have your funds on your new address, and the "tx pusher" will receive his bounty to his bitcoin address (as both outputs will be in the same transaction).

That's a bad idea. It's likely these funds will be stuck for many more years, and each signed transaction will remain equally valid. Once a signed transaction is out there, it can't be invalidated until OP manages to move his funds.
Besides, it will mean trying to double spend on top of the current problem.

Probably you are right here. I wrote that from the position that all the transactions are not accepted by the network. However at this moment we have the case that the spending transaction is in blockcypher:

Code:

https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/7da3515aa3a7492b9e99ef95b7a3e7bbaf500c474de68b3dc4c756d18729abdd/

However this transaction is not in blockchain.com and others. So, yes, different transactions posted in different places could compete with each other and stuck for much longer period of time.