Would this bitcoin site be a good idea?

[BlackHatCoiner]

I don't know if it already exists but read this. We all want to know when exactly our transaction gets verified. (At least those who put very low fees)

I made a 0.4 satoshi per byte transaction and it took 5 days to get confirmed. What if there would be a site that sends you an email once your transaction gets confirmed? Like a VPS that runs 24/7 and checks transactions on its database with an API of a block explorer.

[1714258528]

1714258528

[1714258528]

1714258528

[1714258528]

1714258528

[1714258528]

1714258528

[1714258528]

1714258528

[BlackHatCoiner]

There's no thing such as "Exactly when a transaction will be confirmed", but few blockexplorer such as Blockchair have similar functionality.

Yes but as a browser notification option. Not as email.

[hosseinimr93]

You can use Bitcoin-alerts.live.

Topic on bitcointalk:
Get notified when your Bitcoin transaction is confirmed

Disclaimer:
I don't know if they will spam your inbox with advertising or sell your email address to third parties. Use it at your own risk.
Anyway, I recommend you to not use your main email address.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I have used this site on occasion and can confirm that it works: https://bitcoin-alerts.live/

For my own privacy, I have only ever used throw-away email addresses, as I don't want to link transactions I am interested in to email addresses I actually use. For that reason, I can make no comment about the trustworthiness of the person behind the site and whether any of the email addresses I have submitted ever ended up being flooded with spam or on lists of crypto related addresses being sold.


Lol, beaten to it by hosseinimr.

[joniboini]

Instead of a website a Telegram bot is way better imo. Just register your address on the bot, and then wait for notifications. There's no need to design a web, just need a vps to host your bot server.

[sunsilk]

Instead of a website a Telegram bot is way better imo. Just register your address on the bot, and then wait for notifications. There's no need to design a web, just need a vps to host your bot server.

Are there bots like this that are already existing? Or it has to be made and developed? I think of this as a good idea if you can't manually check your transaction if the network is congested. It eases if the bot will automatically send you a notification that your transaction has been confirmed.

I don't use Telegram that much but on occasions like this, it is very helpful for those who want to save time and only want to wait like me.

[pooya87]

i can not see any reason for using such a service when there is a better alternative that protects user privacy better. and that is to import the "address" in a wallet that can notify you when the transaction confirms which are available for all platforms including mobile, and then let that remain connected to the network. that way you simple get a pop up telling you it was confirmed instead of wanting to sign up with a third party service and they send you an email so that you see the email pop up telling you it is confirmed!

[crwth]

I think it's an excellent idea for a site since there are only a few sites that offer something close to the function you are looking for.

For sure, there's a market for that kind of service but I wouldn't be using it at all. I would just bookmark the transaction I have and check it from time to time. Why would you transact with a low fee in the first place? It would take a longer time for sure, but there's always uncertainty on which it's going to be confirmed.

If you have time for that transaction to take forever, go. If not, just put in higher fees.

[pooya87]

I made a 0.4 satoshi per byte transaction and it took 5 days to get confirmed.

Wow, you are lucky man. I would never risk to make transaction with a fee less than 1sat/byte

majority of bitcoin nodes won't even accept a transaction that has a fee less than 1 satoshi/vbytes, the problem here is that some block explorers compute "vbyte" in a weird and wrong way that ends up being bigger than it should be so the result of dividing total fee by that value becomes smaller hence the wrong 0.4 value here.

[RHavar]

the problem here is that some block explorers compute "vbyte" in a weird and wrong way that ends up being bigger than it should be so the result of dividing total fee by that value becomes smaller hence the wrong 0.4 value here.

I think you're the one confused here. There is nothing weird or wrong about 0.4 sat/byte. It just isn't a perfectly descriptive way to describe a fee rate, as miners sort by fee/weight rather than fee/size. We can make a pretty good guess though, because we know a byte can't be more than 4 weight, and we also know that transactions paying less than 0.25 sat/weight aren't generally propagated or mined.

As a worked example, the largest (?) block explorer:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/b4c40b96695e17bdcb6a5794a24c06af7d0d1fd0d8640c2db01e01d87c15d02c

You'll see it shows and calculates: "Fee per byte" of 0 0.525 sat/byte correctly.

I think the real problem is the whole "virtual byte" system. It's a total understandability disaster to even experience bitcoin users, and I regularly see people confusing size for virtual size and confusing virtual size of physical size. I think we really need to kill it with fire, and just measure stuff in weight. And use something like (SPW: satoshis per weight) as a standard way to measure free rate.

[femi-yoghurt]

It would be a very good idea if that’s implemented but not on an email notification, I would suggest a pop up notification after the transaction is confirmed

For a fee less than 1sat/byte, that’s like a major risk, I don’t see myself taking that much risk

[posi]

Base on the OP request and the above user statement. I did some research and I find this site (Crypto Currency Alerting) which offer transaction confirmation and market price, mempool, coin listing etc notifications. It launched in the year 2018 and ranked 256,778 by Alexa.com


Disclaimer:
I have never use it before and I don't know if they will spam your email or sell your email address to third parties. Use at own risk.

[pooya87]

the problem here is that some block explorers compute "vbyte" in a weird and wrong way that ends up being bigger than it should be so the result of dividing total fee by that value becomes smaller hence the wrong 0.4 value here.

I think you're the one confused here. There is nothing weird or wrong about 0.4 sat/byte. It just isn't a perfectly descriptive way to describe a fee rate, as miners sort by fee/weight rather than fee/size. We can make a pretty good guess though, because we know a byte can't be more than 4 weight, and we also know that transactions paying less than 0.25 sat/weight aren't generally propagated or mined.

As a worked example, the largest (?) block explorer:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/b4c40b96695e17bdcb6a5794a24c06af7d0d1fd0d8640c2db01e01d87c15d02c

You'll see it shows and calculates: "Fee per byte" of 0 0.525 sat/byte correctly.

maybe i am confused, i hadn't checked blockchain.com for a while but i distinctly remember it was showing fee rates in a very weird way that made no sense and it wasn't per weight unit. in any case the virtual byte seems to be the universal unit that wallets use.
as far as i can tell bitcoin core computes fees based on vbytes not weight and pull #17566 isn't merged to change it. consequently miners should sort them based on vbytes too.

I think the real problem is the whole "virtual byte" system. It's a total understandability disaster to even experience bitcoin users, and I regularly see people confusing size for virtual size and confusing virtual size of physical size. I think we really need to kill it with fire, and just measure stuff in weight. And use something like (SPW: satoshis per weight) as a standard way to measure free rate.

i think that confusion is based on existence of "weight" and the whole new SegWit "size" computations and those who have problem with virtual byte already have problem with weight too.

[RHavar]

maybe i am confused, i hadn't checked blockchain.com for a while but i distinctly remember it was showing fee rates in a very weird way that made no sense and it wasn't per weight unit. in any case the virtual byte seems to be the universal unit that wallets use.
as far as i can tell bitcoin core computes fees based on vbytes not weight and pull #17566 isn't merged to change it. consequently miners should sort them based on vbytes too.

A virtual byte is simply 0.25*weight. So converting between the two is simply a case of multiplying or dividing by 4, so if you're sorting by one you're sorting by the other too. Most wallets do indeed expose "virtual byte" at the interface level, which while it did help a smoother transition, I think the whole has been a big net negative. I often see mistakes, most commonly it's by people (and some wallets!) who use "byte" as a short-hand for "virtual byte". Which then leads to problems like where the OP (incorrectly) thought "sat/byte" was the useful measurement said you assumed he was wrong and actually meant "virtual byte" (but he meant what he said) etc.

So yeah, I think we should just kill "virtual byte" and expose SPW (satoshis per weight) as the preferred fee rate.

[Pmalek]

For those who don't want to connect their email addresses to a Bitcoin transaction they can also use a Telegram Bot like Magnum Notifier.

You just click on the Start button > Add Address and enter the address you want to monitor. The Bot takes care of everything else and it will send you a notification when there is a new transaction. It can check your balances as well.

Besides Bitcoin, it also support many altcoins as well.
There is also TrackTX.
It works in a similar way and gives you an option to name your wallet addresses anyway you want. Pretty useful for users tracking multiple addresses.

[o_e_l_e_o]

i hadn't checked blockchain.com for a while but i distinctly remember it was showing fee rates in a very weird way that made no sense and it wasn't per weight unit

I definitely remember this too, and it was part of reason I have refused to use blockchain.com for years, along with the fact they used to display all bech32 addresses as invalid. However, even although the fee per byte is accurate on there now, I would argue that there is no reason to show it at all. It is not an accurate representation of fee paid, and all it does it serve to confuse people

So yeah, I think we should just kill "virtual byte" and expose SPW (satoshis per weight) as the preferred fee rate.

It's been difficult enough to get block explorers, wallets, exchanges, and other services to correctly use and/or display sats/vbyte rather than sats/byte, which is why there is so much confusion about it in the community. Although I agree it would help significantly, I think trying to get everyone and every service to move to SPW will be next to impossible.