Someone just paid 83BTC for transaction fee,

[EL MOHA]

As we all know the transaction fee continues to get high as the mempool remains congested for almost a month now due to reoccurring ORDI tokens on the bitcoin blockchain. This has left some people a bit furious and some newbies making costly mistakes of setting high transaction fees.

A transaction that was in block 818087 had actually paid a whopping sum of 83 bitcoins as the transaction fee. I would say this is a costly mistake but for someone having that huge amount of bitcoin in their possession I don’t get it. The transaction was first broadcasted with a fee of 70 bitcoins and then later was replaced with that of 83 bitcoin as fees.

My guess is the sender was probably trying to set is fee as 70 and 83Sats/vbyte and then mistakenly set out that high fee. The block was mined by Antpool, hopefully they would treat it as mistake and return the funds.

1. TXID for the 83 bitcoin fee: b5a2af5845a8d3796308ff9840e567b14cf6bb158ff26c999e6f9a1f5448f9aa

2. The replaced transaction ID: 0c35f3c8a0c38f45629940ee9ab2b1c93d408be113845a735043261ad20f3351

Advice to newbies check properly the amount your setting as fee and make sure you are looking at the right fees estimator, use wallets that allows bumping of fees in case you set a very low one

[dzungmobile]

This is not a new type of 'mistake' and after many times, I started to think it is not mistake at all.

Those overpaid transaction fee is like a plan from someone to fud the market. It can be used as news like Bitcoin is risky, you can lose money by mistake when broadcasting your transaction and Bitcoin blockchain is irreversible so you will not get your money back. Something like this is in my mind.

There are times mining pools allow senders of those overpaid transactions to provide proof of ownership and claim those bitcoin back.

20 BTC as transaction fee
Bitcoin Miner F2Pool Returns 19.8 BTC to Paxos After Overpaid Fee
80 BTC as transaction fee
Accidentally pay an 80BTC transaction fee? Please contact us for a refund!

[Obari]

Wow I’m shocked how much people really have in their hold wallet like 83btc just for transaction fee? Wow I’m moved and this is actually one reason never to give up and to continue hustling because I can’t even imagine how much will be left in his holdings and there might also be possibilities that the error wasn’t noticed immediately but nevertheless I think this mistake was really expensive and I hope this is treated like a mistake and the money be refunded.

[sheenshane]

I heard a few cases like this which is a very costly mistake, I didn't know if this is a newbie or not.
AFAIK, wallets that don't support RBF are those custodial wallets and I found out that the transaction mistakenly put a huge fee doesn't support RBF.

This case wasn't only on Bitcoin but also in altcoins, just like what happened when "Someone paid $2.6 million in fees to move $134".  So we should double-check first our transactions because we know cryptocurrencies are irreversible transactions, it's very lucky if Antpool will refund those amounts.

[BenCodie]

This is not a new type of 'mistake' and after many times, I started to think it is not mistake at all.

Those overpaid transaction fee is like a plan from someone to fud the market. It can be used as news like Bitcoin is risky, you can lose money by mistake when broadcasting your transaction and Bitcoin blockchain is irreversible so you will not get your money back. Something like this is in my mind.

There are times mining pools allow senders of those overpaid transactions to provide proof of ownership and claim those bitcoin back.

20 BTC as transaction fee
Bitcoin Miner F2Pool Returns 19.8 BTC to Paxos After Overpaid Fee
80 BTC as transaction fee
Accidentally pay an 80BTC transaction fee? Please contact us for a refund!

This is a unique take that I had not thought of, though I think that's a pretty lame and ineffective FUD attempt. Surely people wouldn't shy away from Bitcoin because of someone elses obvious mistake? It doesn't really say much about bitcoin but more about the sender.

Overall, it's a very interesting mistake and the likelihood of it is generally is quite low....it's hard to believe that a wealthy individual holding such large value in Bitcoin could be so ignorant or careless as to not see/incorrectly set the fee amount as a mistake. I feel like there is a reason or purpose for this that only the sender could know.

My guess is the sender was probably trying to set is fee as 70 and 83Sats/vbyte and then mistakenly set out that high fee. The block was mined by Antpool, hopefully they would treat it as mistake and return the funds.  

If the average/approximate fee per vbyte was around this at the time, this could be a pretty good guess.

[satscraper]

Those overpaid transaction fee is like a plan from someone to fud the market. I

It might be also a part of  money laundering scheme. Pools are free to include into candidate block its own transactions which are "hidden" for other miners till that block is mined.

The pools with  enough  calculation power are even have capability  to mine a few blocks that are not visible to other miners. This is cold a selfish mining.

[Amphenomenon]

The transaction was first broadcasted with a fee of 70 bitcoins and then later was replaced with that of 83 bitcoin as fees.

This makes it seems more suspicious and like an intentional acts to me because the sender use RBF to increase the fee which was not supposed to be done, since the 70btc was already a extravagant fee. All I can say is that, dzungmobile claimed about it being FUD to the market is more likely true.

[sokani]

Initially when I saw the amount of Bitcoin, I thought it was a typo error and you wanted to write $83 BTC. I had to go check the link to confirm the news, lo and behold it's true. I know mistakes like this had been done in the past but that was when the price of Bitcoin was insignificant. I doubt if one would mistakenly set 83 BTC as fee, how much Bitcoin does he has in his wallet? I agree with dzungmobile, that the sender knew exactly what he did and it's not a mistake.

[Coin_trader]

This is not a new type of 'mistake' and after many times, I started to think it is not mistake at all.

Those overpaid transaction fee is like a plan from someone to fud the market. It can be used as news like Bitcoin is risky, you can lose money by mistake when broadcasting your transaction and Bitcoin blockchain is irreversible so you will not get your money back. Something like this is in my mind.

Yeah, The amount is too much for just a mistake no matter how huge his holding. Also the most shady thing on this news was the fee is originally set high with 70BTC which is too high not to be notice. Also this kind of huge fee surely be immediately included in the block since it’s above average.

Is it possible that this kind of transaction was use by the miner to set the mining fee high for the average? Aside from what you mention, The miner is the other party who can benefit on it.

[Cookdata]

A transaction that was in block 818087 had actually paid a whopping sum of 83 bitcoins as the transaction fee. I would say this is a costly mistake but for someone having that huge amount of bitcoin in their possession I don’t get it. The transaction was first broadcasted with a fee of 70 bitcoins and then later was replaced with that of 83 bitcoin as fees.

If that's is not money laundering, I don't know what else to call it. I will assume that's a miner transaction because I don't think this is a mistake but a deliberate one. The first time a 70 amount of bitcoin was use as fees and then replace it with a bigger fee, don't you think something is off. If it was a genuine mistake, he would have probably override the transaction to a lower fees the soonest he realized the mistake but bump the fee by +13 bitcoin, that's deliberate action.

My guess is the sender was probably trying to set is fee as 70 and 83Sats/vbyte and then mistakenly set out that high fee. The block was mined by Antpool, hopefully they would treat it as mistake and return the funds.

1. TXID for the 83 bitcoin fee: b5a2af5845a8d3796308ff9840e567b14cf6bb158ff26c999e6f9a1f5448f9aa

2. The replaced transaction ID: 0c35f3c8a0c38f45629940ee9ab2b1c93d408be113845a735043261ad20f3351

Advice to newbies check properly the amount your setting as fee and make sure you are looking at the right fees estimator, use wallets that allows bumping of fees in case you set a very low one

I still don't believe this is a mistake, a honest one will be easy to convince but this particular one is not adding up. The person in question will have even paid 1 bitcoin if at all he was trying to be generous but paying millions of bitcoin in a transaction is really crazy. If the person really made a mistake, we will soon hear from him and beg for returning of the rest of the bitcoin.

[Jawhead999]

My guess is the sender was probably trying to set is fee as 70 and 83Sats/vbyte

The fee rate isn't rounded, so I doubt it's really a mistake.

Is it possible that this kind of transaction was use by the miner to set the mining fee high for the average?

The miner doesn't set the fee, but the wallet is.

It might be also a part of  money laundering scheme. Pools are free to include into candidate block its own transactions which are "hidden" for other miners till that block is mined.

Isn't Bitmain responsible for this? AntPool is owned by Bitmain, if it's used for money laundering, I don't think SEC or any other organization not feel suspicious when they see uncommon transactions.

[sunsilk]

That's $3M+ if valued in dollars and someone to make this mistake? Yeah, it's suspicious that the person who did it likely did it as honest mistake.

It might be also a part of  money laundering scheme.

Very possible.

We have seen this not just once but for the other transactions that have set a high fee mistake wasn't in Bitcoin. Let's see if Antpool is going to say something about this.

[Text]

Wow, that's quite a hefty transaction fee! It's unfortunate to see such costly mistakes. It seems like a classic case of a simple error in setting the transaction fee. Fortunately, in my years of making transactions, I haven't made any mistakes in using fees. It's really necessary to double-check and verify the handling of transaction amount fees because if this happens to me, it would be a real headache. We should be resilient.

If this is indeed a genuine mistake, will AntPool recognize it as such and consider refunding the funds? But we know that they are under no obligation to do so; it is the sender's responsibility to ensure that they are setting the correct fee amount.

[Awaklara]

what is the state of mind of a person who commits such an unintentional mistake? I forgot a bit, but it seems a similar situation has also happened to Ethereum when transaction fees on the Ethereum network also soared.
The situation again gives us an idea to remain alert and always be careful and also double-check before agreeing to a transaction. not only the nominal but also the destination address.

but has there been a similar case before and the sender received compensation or a refund?

[CryptSafe]

I will assume that the transaction occurred as a mistake; otherwise, I was wondering what the nature of the transaction could be that would make one pay such a volume of BTC as a transaction fee. People are that wealthy, though, but looking at the monetary equivalent of the volume of BTC paid for the transaction, it is too real to be realistic. Such a mistake is very grave to make. Although people would make such mistakes, not in that tone.

[Anguwa]

This is a mistake no one will want to make because it is a costly mistake that will take time to be forgotten.
83btc as transaction fee is very high, it is above my comprehension because I will never expect someone to loose such huge amount of bitcoins as transaction fee just to confirm a transaction that is not up to 100BTC.

This should serve as a lesson for newbies like us that are not taking learning serious before starting to do something related to bitcoin and crypto transactions, most of these transactions are irreversible so if we make mistakes with such huge amount, we just have to be patient.

[Antotena]

what is the state of mind of a person who commits such an unintentional mistake? I forgot a bit, but it seems a similar situation has also happened to Ethereum when transaction fees on the Ethereum network also soared.
The situation again gives us an idea to remain alert and always be careful and also double-check before agreeing to a transaction. not only the nominal but also the destination address.

The question we need to ask is, are there chances of making mistake twice? The transaction came from a segwit address which means that the person is knows everything that has been happening, if it was from a legacy address, I will have assume probably the person doesn't know much update about what has been happening on bitcoin but this person is a pro that paid 119980x of transaction fee, this is not a mistake to be honest. Look at the RBF transaction and see again

but has there been a similar case before and the sender received compensation or a refund?

Yes, there was this transaction that was done by Paxos company, they paid $500,000 for a transaction of $200 but the miners later return the fees. If you should compare that transaction with this one, you will understand the one that was a mistake and the other that was intentional.

[PrivacyG]

It might be also a part of  money laundering scheme. Pools are free to include into candidate block its own transactions which are "hidden" for other miners till that block is mined.

Sounds like that to me too.  I doubt it was a mistake TWICE and even more costly.  How in the world do you not notice over 70 Bitcoin is missing from your Wallet.  TWICE!

The only answer is this.  Some sort of scheme.  Or stupidity at its finest.

[Doan9269]

A transaction that was in block 818087 had actually paid a whopping sum of 83 bitcoins as the transaction fee. I would say this is a costly mistake but for someone having that huge amount of bitcoin in their possession I don’t get it. The transaction was first broadcasted with a fee of 70 bitcoins and then later was replaced with that of 83 bitcoin as fees.

Is this actually a mistake or being ignorant, even if he transaction being made is that huge, it shouldn't have occurred that one is paying this huge sum for making payments, I was shocked in the first place when i saw this, thinking that maybe it was $70 that was intended and not in btc, if this was actually true, then i also wonder how the fund in question was acquired, there's more to know about this incident.

My guess is the sender was probably trying to set is fee as 70 and 83Sats/vbyte and then mistakenly set out that high fee. The block was mined by Antpool, hopefully they would treat it as mistake and return the funds.

1. TXID for the 83 bitcoin fee: b5a2af5845a8d3796308ff9840e567b14cf6bb158ff26c999e6f9a1f5448f9aa

2. The replaced transaction ID: 0c35f3c8a0c38f45629940ee9ab2b1c93d408be113845a735043261ad20f3351

Advice to newbies check properly the amount your setting as fee and make sure you are looking at the right fees estimator, use wallets that allows bumping of fees in case you set a very low one

If from what you guess is right, then the sender is the one at fault from his mistake, we need to check ad always double check anything we are doing before making a confirmation for that.

[tranthidung]

It might be also a part of  money laundering scheme. Pools are free to include into candidate block its own transactions which are "hidden" for other miners till that block is mined.

It can be money laundering if a mining pool return it to the original sender, I don't think so. Because both transaction hashes of the mistakenly transaction (with high fee) and the return transaction are all public on the blockchain. Everyone can see it and it will not be hidden if it's money laundering. Where the bitcoins come from can be easily traced.

The pools with  enough  calculation power are even have capability  to mine a few blocks that are not visible to other miners. This is cold a selfish mining.

Big mining pools can mine two or three blocks consecutively, it's true and you can see it there.
BTC empty blocks (2009 - 5 May 2020): miners, size, daily, monthly,yearly stats.

The untrue is all blocks are public on blockchain and the public ledger. You can see it on block explorers and what do you mean by 'are not visible to other miners"?

Not only other miners but many Bitcoin full nodes can see it too.