Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 08:30:55 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Over an hour and still waiting for confirmation?  (Read 3847 times)
just_someguy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 125


View Profile
April 18, 2011, 02:15:02 AM
 #1

Thanks to some friendly people on this site I got a few bitcents to play with and tried a few transactions this weekend.
While the first couple I made seemed to get confirmed in about a half hour I'm waiting on one right now for over an hour.
I've seen 5 or 6 blocks get generated since the transaction was submitted but still nothing.
Is this normal? Are there transactions that just never get confirmed?
1481013055
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481013055

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481013055
Reply with quote  #2

1481013055
Report to moderator
1481013055
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481013055

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481013055
Reply with quote  #2

1481013055
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492


View Profile
April 18, 2011, 02:20:07 AM
 #2

Sometimes it takes a while, especially if the transaction is low-value.

Run Bitcoin with the -debug switch, double-click the transaction, and post the transaction dump.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
Alex Beckenham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
April 18, 2011, 02:22:50 AM
 #3

Sometimes it takes a while, especially if the transaction is low-value.

If the transaction fee is set to 0.00 anyway, then what's the incentive for a miner to process higher value transactions?

just_someguy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 125


View Profile
April 18, 2011, 02:28:49 AM
 #4

Here's the dump:

Status: 0/unconfirmed
Date: 4/17/2011 21:08
To: 1Nc9CNRSbgydVWvD7MeSmpfVRSxfrcxHE4
Debit: -0.03
Net amount: -0.03

debug print
Debit: -0.01
Debit: -0.02
Transaction:
CTransaction(hash=f35f5852c8, ver=1, vin.size=2, vout.size=1, nLockTime=0)
   CTxIn(COutPoint(6af6bc1d2b, 1), scriptSig=3046022100c848339b1e6cfd)
   CTxIn(COutPoint(7899c14c8f, 0), scriptSig=3045022010927d40c68191fa)
   CTxOut(nValue=0.03000000, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 ed000ab48bd6)
Inputs:
CTransaction(hash=6af6bc1d2b, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=2, nLockTime=0)
   CTxIn(COutPoint(6a1605fb0d, 0), scriptSig=3044022041513cc92b854c07)
   CTxOut(nValue=1.37000000, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 57dea564b9bf)
   CTxOut(nValue=0.01000000, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 944c5cc07a22)
   105 confirmations, IsMine=true
CTransaction(hash=7899c14c8f, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=1, nLockTime=0)
   CTxIn(COutPoint(9a80be4e5c, 0), scriptSig=304502207ce5e0a4093ab648)
   CTxOut(nValue=0.02000000, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 cbe868214131)
   36 confirmations, IsMine=true

Before running with debug it said something about having broadcast through 9 nodes.

dood,
I'm clearly new at this so I can't answer your question.
From my reading the transaction fee is optional at least until some indeterminate time in the future?
If everything requires a transaction fee to be processed at all than I guess I've misunderstood what bitcoin was.
Are you saying that unless I pay a transaction fee its up in the air whether the transaction will be processed?

just_someguy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 125


View Profile
April 18, 2011, 02:35:34 AM
 #5

Ok, it just came through at roughly an hour and a half.
Is that about what I can expect?
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492


View Profile
April 18, 2011, 02:53:17 AM
 #6

It was given lower priority because of its low value. A transaction moving, say, 1000 BTC would probably have gotten included ASAP. Same for a transaction with a fee. The priority system is meant to make real transactions faster than spam transactions. Sending 0.03 BTC looks more like spam, especially when you use inputs with relatively few confirmations.

If the transaction fee is set to 0.00 anyway, then what's the incentive for a miner to process higher value transactions?

There's no obvious incentive for processing free transactions at all, but miners still do it currently. Higher-value transactions are given priority because it ties up more funds.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
Alex Beckenham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
April 18, 2011, 02:55:42 AM
 #7

From my reading the transaction fee is optional at least until some indeterminate time in the future?
If everything requires a transaction fee to be processed at all than I guess I've misunderstood what bitcoin was.
Are you saying that unless I pay a transaction fee its up in the air whether the transaction will be processed?

Yes it's optional. My understanding is that if you opt to pay say 0.01 per kb for your transactions, then that'll help them to get process priority.

What I don't understand is how large amounts automatically get process priority, even when the fee is set to 0.00... what's the incentive for the miner to choose these over small amounts?


Alex Beckenham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
April 18, 2011, 02:57:09 AM
 #8

Higher-value transactions are given priority because it ties up more funds.

Is that good or bad? I don't understand this answer, and why miners would care what value the transactions are.

theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492


View Profile
April 18, 2011, 02:59:26 AM
 #9

Tying up funds makes it more difficult for an attacker to spam. Spamming 1000 BTC transactions is more difficult than spamming 0.01 BTC transactions.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
Alex Beckenham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
April 18, 2011, 03:04:42 AM
 #10

Tying up funds makes it more difficult for an attacker to spam. Spamming 1000 BTC transactions is more difficult than spamming 0.01 BTC transactions.

Up to this point I thought of spam as unsolicited, commercial, bulk email.

By 'spam', do you mean like a DOS attack on someone's node?

In that case, it all makes sense.

theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492


View Profile
April 18, 2011, 03:10:14 AM
 #11

Spam = transactions made for the purpose of disrupting the network.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile WWW
April 18, 2011, 03:35:00 PM
 #12

Spam = transactions made for the purpose of disrupting the network.

Why would somebody do that?  What is the advantage for them?

MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
April 18, 2011, 03:38:37 PM
 #13

Spam = transactions made for the purpose of disrupting the network.

Why would somebody do that?  What is the advantage for them?

There could be a number of motivations, not the least of which is geek vandalism.  Comparable to a graffettii artist.  Basicly just because one could.  Secretly strike back at the new "Man" in a Bitcoin future.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
elggawf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
May 17, 2011, 12:34:38 AM
 #14

I don't know if it's proper for me to be (sort of) grave-digging or if I should have started a new thread, but I have exactly the same concerns... except in our case it's been about 4 hours (and many, many blocks) and still no confirmations.

I had the sender attach a transaction fee for the exact reason of avoiding a huge delay waiting for confirmations, and it's still sitting there unconfirmed. I've got the client running in debug mode, and when I double click it there's no inputs... is there something either I or the sender did wrong?

My guess is that the transaction has no inputs because the transactions that funded it are unconfirmed too? If that's the case what's the proper procedure for getting the chain of transactions confirmed? Would sending another payment to myself with a bigger transaction fee help speed things up? What's the cost/payoff ratio in that case, for future reference.

Just trying to figure this whole thing out and would really appreciate some advice - given that blocks are being generated at a good whip, and that some of the blocks were empty of transactions I didn't figure we'd have to wait so long for confirmations.

^_^
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492


View Profile
May 17, 2011, 12:37:16 AM
 #15

Post the tx dump.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
elggawf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
May 17, 2011, 12:49:15 AM
 #16

Thanks for your time. Cheesy

Code:
Status: 0/unconfirmed
Date: 5/16/2011 14:27
From: unknown
To: 1ByjQWtLoed8tFYA2TjbV8jtP3JEJQrgDi (yours, label: xxxx@xxxxx.xxx)
Credit: 1.09
Net amount: +1.09

debug print
Credit: 1.09
Transaction:
CTransaction(hash=91d1df25b4, ver=1, vin.size=5, vout.size=1, nLockTime=0)
   CTxIn(COutPoint(7943340481, 0), scriptSig=3045022100942a13adcd9fda)
   CTxIn(COutPoint(bf3f9f0354, 5), scriptSig=3045022100d247f28b39e828)
   CTxIn(COutPoint(bf3f9f0354, 8), scriptSig=3045022100e7061c8f3f9ec1)
   CTxIn(COutPoint(bf3f9f0354, 23), scriptSig=30450221008d7c5639e861f0)
   CTxIn(COutPoint(044807b58e, 0), scriptSig=30460221008b0f2b7a9df6bf)
   CTxOut(nValue=1.09000000, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 786bf3316d08)
Inputs:


^_^
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492


View Profile
May 17, 2011, 02:05:27 AM
 #17

It's queued, but low priority. There is no fee. See:
http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/

The hash is:
CTransaction(hash=91d1df25b4, ver=1, vin.size=5, vout.size=1, nLockTime=0)

There actually are inputs ("CTxIn"). I'm not sure why they're not listed separately under "Inputs". Maybe inputs are only listed there when you're sending a transaction.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
elggawf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
May 17, 2011, 02:10:40 AM
 #18

It's queued, but low priority. There is no fee. See:
http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/

The hash is:
CTransaction(hash=91d1df25b4, ver=1, vin.size=5, vout.size=1, nLockTime=0)

There actually are inputs ("CTxIn"). I'm not sure why they're not listed separately under "Inputs". Maybe inputs are only listed there when you're sending a transaction.

Ah ha, thanks. The sender said he attached a transaction fee, but perhaps he forgot to. Would sending BTC to myself with 0.01 transaction fee speed things up any?

^_^
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492


View Profile
May 17, 2011, 02:15:48 AM
 #19

Ah ha, thanks. The sender said he attached a transaction fee, but perhaps he forgot to. Would sending BTC to myself with 0.01 transaction fee speed things up any?

No. There's nothing you can do.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!