someone pays 83.65 $BTC ($3,136,058) in transaction fees, overpaying by 120,258

[Gormicsta]

I was on my phone today reading some article when I got a pop up notification from the X app ( Then known as Twitter) and the content of the notification made me pause to look at the notification and check if this was real or maybe it's  someone just tryna messing with people online. I further looked up the information and found out it was real. I mean why on earth would someone pay 83.65 BTC ($3,136,058) in transaction fees on the Bitcoin network? Which is typically 120,258 times more than the actual fee of 0.0007 Bitcoin ($26.66) for a transaction. I keep asking myself why in earth would someone do that because it doesn't make sense why a user would pay such an enormous amount for transaction fees. Could it have been an error when setting the transaction fee or maybe it was a deliberate attempt to manipulate the Bitcoin Market because this Scenario has currently sparked lots of discussion in the Bitcoin community if it was indeed an error or a deliberate attempt to manipulate the market.

Well I wouldn't know the reason for the action and that's why I brought it here if anyone would provide a more logical reason that led to this action.

[1715037409]

1715037409

[1715037409]

1715037409

[Charles-Tim]

There are two other related threads recently where you can get your answers, that it was most likely be a mistake.

Get you answers here: Someone just paid 83BTC for transaction fee,

Or here: Is\will Bitcoin become unaffordable to use?

Just to avoid repeating what has been posted about this before, lock this thread.

[Yamane_Keto]

Mostly a problem with the software or an error in passing the values. Instead of passing the value to the transaction, it is passed as a fee, and this is not the first time. It happened here Paxos Behind $500K Bitcoin Fee Overpayment For $2K Worth of BTC Transfer where the fee was about 20 bitcoins, and it was recovered here  Bitcoin Miner F2Pool Returns 19.8 BTC to Paxos After Overpaid Fee

[mk4]

My assumption: that dude was either totally hammered drunk, was under some illegal substance, was just totally tired, or is one of the most careless people in the entire world. Even if you were in a total rush to send a transaction, there's no way someone would be okay with paying that high of a fee.

[disferret]

That is the opposite of a dopamine hit when a transaction completes. Ouch.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

Even if you were in a total rush to send a transaction, there's no way someone would be okay with paying that high of a fee.

Or he probably wanted to create awareness in the space because that address still holds a lot more bitcoin, way more than the 83.65 bitcoin he used for the fee. I can also agree with you that the person who sent the transaction was absolutely out of their mind; either they were under the influence of alcohol or drugs, like you have said, or another thing could be that he or she might be faced with a serious emergency case like health issues or something else, and they were probably not thinking. Just some days ago, one man sold one of his houses for $40, 000+ in an area where houses are sold for almost $150, 000+. The reason he sold that house was because he had an accident and broke his neck bone that is connected to the spinal cord, and the only way they can save him is to fly him abroad for surgery, so he had no choice but to sell the house that cheap to the available buyer. So, in the case of that guy with an 83+ Bitcoin high fee, it could be something bad that happened to him.

[adaseb]

I think it was some weird bug where if he used the api, it fetched the wrong fee. Or maybe he was doing the transactions manually and got a few decimal places mixed up.

I guess this is why you should always look over the confirmation before hitting send. Make sure it goes to the right address along with the right amount to send along with the fee. Pretty sure normal software clients can’t make a fee that high manually.

[NeuroticFish]

My assumption: that dude was either totally hammered drunk, was under some illegal substance, was just totally tired, or is one of the most careless people in the entire world. Even if you were in a total rush to send a transaction, there's no way someone would be okay with paying that high of a fee.

My assumption is that he used some odd custom tool (probably made by himself) for the tx and that tool has no warning for high fees, plus it probably doesn't state it clearly what is the amount to transfer and what is the fee.
The user has been probably using it for a couple of times correctly and now has filled the data wrong.

Some always think they can do better than the known wallets ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[B_T_C]

Someone just signed a message and prooved that the wallet sending the largest amount of fees in the history of Bitcoin belonged to him:

https://twitter.com/83_5BTC

[philipma1957]

Even if you were in a total rush to send a transaction, there's no way someone would be okay with paying that high of a fee.

Or he probably wanted to create awareness in the space because that address still holds a lot more bitcoin, way more than the 83.65 bitcoin he used for the fee. I can also agree with you that the person who sent the transaction was absolutely out of their mind; either they were under the influence of alcohol or drugs, like you have said, or another thing could be that he or she might be faced with a serious emergency case like health issues or something else, and they were probably not thinking. Just some days ago, one man sold one of his houses for $40, 000+ in an area where houses are sold for almost $150, 000+. The reason he sold that house was because he had an accident and broke his neck bone that is connected to the spinal cord, and the only way they can save him is to fly him abroad for surgery, so he had no choice but to sell the house that cheap to the available buyer. So, in the case of that guy with an 83+ Bitcoin high fee, it could be something bad that happened to him.

thank you .  what's it to a guy with 10000 btc in hand that has also cashed 1000 for 40k each.

This danger exists. for btc.

What if  some of those early 1,000,000 btc are used to force fees to stay above 50 sats or 60 sats.

to most seems nutty but to someone working hand in hand with 2 or 3 top pools the ability to keep fees at 60 sat is easy peasy.  read my thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2634505.0

picture the damage that could be done

[hd49728]

Someone just signed a message and prooved that the wallet sending the largest amount of fees in the history of Bitcoin belonged to him:

https://twitter.com/83_5BTC

If this is true, it is like money laundering through Bitcoin mining and mining pools.

Mining pools will have to set up their parameter to filter suspicious transactions like the ones with overpaid transaction fee than value of the transaction or transaction fee is much higher than average transaction fee on the network last 24 hours.

Seriously thinking is it a kind of censorship?
Is it good for Bitcoin user?

Hardcore people who don't like censorship and centralized engagement in Bitcoin network operation includes Bitcoin transaction confirmation will not like this idea.

[philipma1957]

Someone just signed a message and prooved that the wallet sending the largest amount of fees in the history of Bitcoin belonged to him:

https://twitter.com/83_5BTC

If this is true, it is like money laundering through Bitcoin mining and mining pools.

Mining pools will have to set up their parameter to filter suspicious transactions like the ones with overpaid transaction fee than value of the transaction or transaction fee is much higher than average transaction fee on the network last 24 hours.

Seriously thinking is it a kind of censorship?
Is it good for Bitcoin user?

Hardcore people who don't like censorship and centralized engagement in Bitcoin network operation includes Bitcoin transaction confirmation will not like this idea.

yep and look at these two charts. first one shows if you were under 30 sats you stay stuck. two weeks in a row.





second chart shows what is needed to keep that 30 stat number going on and on and on
only 9-12 btc to flood the mempool and force people to spend 40 or 50 or 60 stats

and you need understand that the 9-12 you flood with don't process so you do not lose that quickly.

Now look at foundry they won't let people under 20 ph mine with them so their payout plans are hidden no one knows how much of the fees they give to miners. Unless you have 20 ph tinted to them you can't join them.

So if they make 30% to the blocks which are inflated to 1 btc in fess. we get

30% of 144 = 43 blocks with say 43 btc in fees vs maybe 12 due to the flooding technique. This is not good.  It could mean 30-50 sats for months on end. as a typical fee.



as for money laundering via 83 block fees nope as others could win and that set of coins are lost.

my scheme as listed above is more likely to happen. I can't figure a way the 83 block guy could be sure the right pool wins it.

[tbct_mt2]

second chart shows what is needed to keep that 30 stat number going on and on and on
only 9-12 btc to flood the mempool and force people to spend 40 or 50 or 60 stats

and you need understand that the 9-12 you flood with don't process so you do not lose that quickly.

Now look at foundry they won't let people under 20 ph mine with them so their payout plans are hidden no one knows how much of the fees they give to miners. Unless you have 20 ph tinted to them you can't join them.

So if they make 30% to the blocks which are inflated to 1 btc in fess. we get

30% of 144 = 43 blocks with say 43 btc in fees vs maybe 12 due to the flooding technique. This is not good.  It could mean 30-50 sats for months on end. as a typical fee.

The flood attack is from Ordinals, Incriptions that all started with the Taproot proposal and community vote to support it.

Incriptions, Mempools and Miners
https://dune.com/dgtl_assets/bitcoin-ordinals-analysis
https://dune.com/dataalways/ordinals

Taproot was activated at a block 709,632 on Nov. 14, 2021.
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/709632

Anyway for Bitcoin community to vote for deactivation of Taproot?

Miners and mining pools will not support this proposal because it is harmful for their income.

[yhiaali3]

This story has already become known to everyone. This story has been discussed in more than one topic here on the forum. No one knows what exactly happened with this man, but there are many explanations.

Some of them think it is a human error, others think it is a software error, and some say perhaps it is fraud or money laundering. All of these possibilities actually exist and we do not know what is true.

But I am curious to know which mining pool charged these very high fees for the transaction and is there a possibility to return these unreasonable fees in case of human or software error?

[adaseb]

Ok I am following the thread on twitter from the guy who sent the large fee. He says that he was creating a new cold storage address and as soon as he moved his funds to this address it was sent elsewhere. He doesn’t know why it has the large fee.

Many asked him what software he used but he didn’t reply yet. I am guessing it’s some fake wallet because there have been no other reports of users getting funds stolen. Also it’s a buggy fake wallet because it didn’t work properly because a lot of the bitcoin moved was just the fee.

[Kakmakr]

Ok I am following the thread on twitter from the guy who sent the large fee. He says that he was creating a new cold storage address and as soon as he moved his funds to this address it was sent elsewhere. He doesn’t know why it has the large fee.

Many asked him what software he used but he didn’t reply yet. I am guessing it’s some fake wallet because there have been no other reports of users getting funds stolen. Also it’s a buggy fake wallet because it didn’t work properly because a lot of the bitcoin moved was just the fee.

Well, the only logical reason might be that he was a victim of a clipboard hack, where people re-directed his coins to another Bitcoin address, if he is saying it went to the wrong address... but this transaction talks about the transaction fees and not the amount that were send to a wrong address. 

I think he miss-clicked the "fee" parameter in whatever wallet software he used and it grabbed $3 000 000+ because he confirmed it. It normally shows you what the transaction fees will be, but he never looked at that and just confirmed the transaction. 

[Publictalk792]

This is not a new thing. We listened many news about this. Not even in Bitcoin Network we have seen this in Ethereum Network too. I know this is Bitcoin Discussion section. I am just putting an example.
The transaction which you have shown we can say that this is a network error. Otherwise a simple human can not do this mistake. Because we can see that this is not a low amount 83 Bitcoins is a huge amount.
We have an example in the past like Paxos paid almost 20 Bitcoins to F2Pool by mistake. There were some errors I think so. But thing is that which inspired me that F2Pool return that fee to Paxos back.
If this user will also contact to the pool providers so I think he will also get back his money.

[Bitcoinpoly]

I was on my phone today reading some article when I got a pop up notification from the X app ( Then known as Twitter) and the content of the notification made me pause to look at the notification and check if this was real or maybe it's  someone just tryna messing with people online. I further looked up the information and found out it was real. I mean why on earth would someone pay 83.65 BTC ($3,136,058) in transaction fees on the Bitcoin network? Which is typically 120,258 times more than the actual fee of 0.0007 Bitcoin ($26.66) for a transaction. I keep asking myself why in earth would someone do that because it doesn't make sense why a user would pay such an enormous amount for transaction fees. Could it have been an error when setting the transaction fee or maybe it was a deliberate attempt to manipulate the Bitcoin Market because this Scenario has currently sparked lots of discussion in the Bitcoin community if it was indeed an error or a deliberate attempt to manipulate the market.

Well I wouldn't know the reason for the action and that's why I brought it here if anyone would provide a more logical reason that led to this action.

One of the reasons why using CEX will be far preferable than using a DEX. Most of my transactions on Bitget are usually free even as a BGB holder, but carrying out transactions on DEX will charge a lot.

[Phu Juck]

One of the reasons why using CEX will be far preferable than using a DEX. Most of my transactions on Bitget are usually free even as a BGB holder, but carrying out transactions on DEX will charge a lot.

But CEX has soo many downsides as well. Much more downsides in my opinion because Bitcoin is much safer, when it is not stored on CEX.
Why holding Bitcoin is we do it on a CEX?
We need to check transaction fees of course. But it is simple if we know. 

[carlfebz2]

One of the reasons why using CEX will be far preferable than using a DEX. Most of my transactions on Bitget are usually free even as a BGB holder, but carrying out transactions on DEX will charge a lot.

But CEX has soo many downsides as well. Much more downsides in my opinion because Bitcoin is much safer, when it is not stored on CEX.
Why holding Bitcoin is we do it on a CEX?
We need to check transaction fees of course. But it is simple if we know. 

If that Bitcoin had been passed through CEX then it wont happen because there would really be a specific fixed fees which it is really that not possible to have mistakes. Usually this is something that could
happen when we are making use of other non custodial wallets like Electrum on which you could be able to hover up on how much fee you would be able to make use specially if you are that
planning to raise up that sat/byte thing. It is really just that hard to believe that someone who do have tons of  Bitcoin is really that noob on making use of these wallets
considering that knowing the basic operations on how Bitcoin works and other correlated things into it wont really be that so hard to understand. How much more if you are
one of those OG's? Simple operation about transfer shouldn't be an issue but well worry not because those miners or pools will definitely be giving
it back.

[adaseb]

I’ve been following the thread on his Twitter and about 20 people all asked what software he used to make the wallet or how did he actually create his wallet and he never replied.

So who knows what is going on. Why won’t he answer the question. Currently he is talking with Antpool and perhaps they will be kind and refund the high fee, usually when this happens they are honest and return the funds.

[DaveF]

The issue comes down to we don't know what happened before or next.

If hackers got the private keys then they could just as easily sign the message. Unless he can provide a trail to those coins. i.e. here is my Coinbase account and here is where I sent them to that address. But, they you still have the issue of how compromised was he, do the hackers also have access to his Coinbase account. (Just using coinbase as an example)

I know others have blamed bad entropy. Although possible, it's more likely there are other reasons involved. Being blunt, it's not secure to leave a pile of cash out where people can look in the window of your house and see it. BUT leaving your front door open while it's there is more likely to get it stolen. NOT just because your door is open, but because your door being open will cause people to look over and see the cash. If they had to walk up to a closed front door and look in to see the pile of cash, although still not secure it's a lot more secure.

-Dave

[Phu Juck]

One of the reasons why using CEX will be far preferable than using a DEX. Most of my transactions on Bitget are usually free even as a BGB holder, but carrying out transactions on DEX will charge a lot.

But CEX has soo many downsides as well. Much more downsides in my opinion because Bitcoin is much safer, when it is not stored on CEX.
Why holding Bitcoin is we do it on a CEX?
We need to check transaction fees of course. But it is simple if we know. 

If that Bitcoin had been passed through CEX then it wont happen because there would really be a specific fixed fees which it is really that not possible to have mistakes.

Yes, it won't happen but CEX has soo many downsides as well. Why trade one downside against 10 more downsides because CEX has lots of downsides?
We should try to improve our knowlefge how to avoid transaction fee fail, not trust CEX instead.

[cygan]

now the miner (in this case antpool) has come forward and wants to refund the 83BTC to the victimized user
however, the miner would have to fulfill certain requirements in order to be able to prove the identity of the previous owner of the 83BTC

he would have to use Electrum or Bitcoin Core as a wallet and sign the message 'AntPool' using the pk of the bc1qn3d7vyks0k3fx38xkxazpep8830ttmydwekrnl address and send the output as signed text by e-mail to the support
here is the official announcement:


https://www.antpool.com/newsDetail/457-Announcement%20for%20Claiming%2083BTC%20Gas%20Fee

[FatFork]

now the miner (in this case antpool) has come forward and wants to refund the 83BTC to the victimized user
however, the miner would have to fulfill certain requirements in order to be able to prove the identity of the previous owner of the 83BTC

he would have to use Electrum or Bitcoin Core as a wallet and sign the message 'AntPool' using the pk of the bc1qn3d7vyks0k3fx38xkxazpep8830ttmydwekrnl address and send the output as signed text by e-mail to the support
here is the official announcement:

I saw a message from Antpool on twitter and was kinda surprised at how simple their requirements are for proving ownership of that address.  You'd think they would wanna be more careful, considering the situation.  A hacker/scammer can also sign an address. But I guess they either don't fully get or care that the private key is likely out there with multiple parties who could sign that address if they wanted and  that level of proof doesn't seem nearly good enough to me for this particular case.