I'm curious about a slow transaction

[divergenta]

I'm curious about something.

Almost 24 hours ago I sent a transaction of 0.07 btc (without a fee) to one of my other computers to a different "account"/wallet and still after nearly 24 hours it says 0/unconfirmed.

I have the whole blockchain downloaded and 32 connections and on the receiving computer I have 8 connections and the whole blockchain. The funny thing is that I successfully sent even smaller amounts to the same computer (also without any fee) and got these pretty fast while is was waiting for the 0.07 btc transaction to get trough.

I don't know how to find the transaction hash when using the standard gui bitcoin client. But the address I tried to send the 0.07 is 1KCJ79R4CexWmqK6qa2HBeFv8bG3a3wAfX.

0.07 btc is not a big deal really, but I'm just curious, I know that a transaction can take some time but I never have to wait like ≥ 24 hours before even when being to greedy not to pay any fee. Have I been very lucky every time I sent small transactions without using fees and these have went trough pretty fast? Or am I experiencing some kind of trouble or should I just have more patience and have another cup of coffee?

[Garrett Burgwardt]

Odds are the .07 coin tx was using relatively new coins, ones you haven't controlled for very long. The smaller transactions were probably very old coins and thus made it into a medium or even high priority slot.

[Mike Hearn]

Hardly. He's spending an output that entered a block yesterday.

These priority bands are very complicated and hard to debug. If priority simply ordered transactions in a block when that block would be larger than the max size, that'd be one thing. I question whether the additional complexity is required.

[Mike Hearn]

I'm wrong. ArtForz corrected me. Somehow this transaction is a double spend - it will never confirm because you're trying to spend coins that were already spent.

Are you copying wallet.dat files around, or using modified software somehow?

[divergenta]

I'm wrong. ArtForz corrected me. Somehow this transaction is a double spend - it will never confirm because you're trying to spend coins that were already spent.

Are you copying wallet.dat files around, or using modified software somehow?

How strange.
I only have my wallet.dat on my primary debian partition and on my win-xp partition (and I hardly never use the windows partition), and besides from well hidden and encrypted backups.

And I only use the official standard gui version. But I have switched between version 0.3.20.2 and 0.3.21-beta back and forth using the same .bitcoin directory lately. I'm wondering if this could have something to do with it in some way? Becuase when I did the transaction I didn't experience any problems or errors and I have more than 0.07 btc in my wallet.
Even if it's only a small sum it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable or rather confused.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

How can we be sure it's a double spend? Relevant blockexplorer links?

Not to contradict Artforzz and [mike] (who are both much smarter than I), I'd still bet on my explanation until evidence of a double spend shows up.

[divergenta]

How can we be sure it's a double spend? Relevant blockexplorer links?

Not to contradict Artforzz and [mike] (who are both much smarter than I), I'd still bet on my explanation until evidence of a double spend shows up.

If that's the case I can do post here in this thread if I get any confirmation of the transaction.

[Cusipzzz]

Yes, can someone show the raw tx details? so we can check with block explorer and anyone running a node who saw that raw 'double spend' tx? Might be informative for a lot of people here. thanks.

[syn]

Here is the account in question --> http://blockexplorer.com/address/1KCJ79R4CexWmqK6qa2HBeFv8bG3a3wAfX


I will go through my nodes logs (talks to about 74 others constantly), but I need as accurate as possible the time in which you "spent" the transaction that never made the block chain.

[divergenta]

Ok, a little update on this matter:

Still no confirmations.
I booted up my windows partition which uses the same wallet.dat just to check but there was no trace of the .07 transfer in my transaction history.

[Gavin Andresen]

Your 0.07 transaction is very-low-priority, and still waiting to get in a block.  From bitcoincharts:

Code:

2011-05-11 15:34:58 2cf664377d1923089d0aed9d7aab3f8d51f69c76409a71e3d88b378a13e3612e
This is a low priority transaction.
size: 258 bytes
priority: 12,250,000
input: 0.12900000 BTC
0.12900000 BTC from 9bea18121283bc7f9618eb8b50ce94e9df4698eb51468152fa686bfe94387d2d:0 (1CM9WjjPScLSfQaYXq9YY5VgqUh6bP87rw)
output: 0.12900000 BTC
0.07000000 BTC to 1KCJ79R4CexWmqK6qa2HBeFv8bG3a3wAfX
0.05900000 BTC to 14Q7k5u5UAhEWC5E52BGwLVFKWeW3ffBtA

It might take a few days, but it will eventually get confirmed.

[divergenta]

Thank you so much for the information Gavin. Highly appreciated.
Looks like I have to be a bit more patient then 

[gigabytecoin]

I'm curious about something.

Almost 24 hours ago I sent a transaction of 0.07 btc (without a fee) to one of my other computers to a different "account"/wallet and still after nearly 24 hours it says 0/unconfirmed.

I have the whole blockchain downloaded and 32 connections and on the receiving computer I have 8 connections and the whole blockchain. The funny thing is that I successfully sent even smaller amounts to the same computer (also without any fee) and got these pretty fast while is was waiting for the 0.07 btc transaction to get trough.

I don't know how to find the transaction hash when using the standard gui bitcoin client. But the address I tried to send the 0.07 is 1KCJ79R4CexWmqK6qa2HBeFv8bG3a3wAfX.

0.07 btc is not a big deal really, but I'm just curious, I know that a transaction can take some time but I never have to wait like ≥ 24 hours before even when being to greedy not to pay any fee. Have I been very lucky every time I sent small transactions without using fees and these have went trough pretty fast? Or am I experiencing some kind of trouble or should I just have more patience and have another cup of coffee?

Those weren't two separate bitcoin faucet dispersions were they? 0.05 + 0.02 = 0.07?

ಠ_ಠ

[divergenta]

No it's just a single 0.07 transfer, the other ones worked just fine.

[Mike Hearn]

Your 0.07 transaction is very-low-priority, and still waiting to get in a block.  From bitcoincharts:

Code:

2011-05-11 15:34:58 2cf664377d1923089d0aed9d7aab3f8d51f69c76409a71e3d88b378a13e3612e
This is a low priority transaction.
size: 258 bytes
priority: 12,250,000
input: 0.12900000 BTC
0.12900000 BTC from 9bea18121283bc7f9618eb8b50ce94e9df4698eb51468152fa686bfe94387d2d:0 (1CM9WjjPScLSfQaYXq9YY5VgqUh6bP87rw)
output: 0.12900000 BTC
0.07000000 BTC to 1KCJ79R4CexWmqK6qa2HBeFv8bG3a3wAfX
0.05900000 BTC to 14Q7k5u5UAhEWC5E52BGwLVFKWeW3ffBtA

It might take a few days, but it will eventually get confirmed.

It will never confirm because it's a double spend. Look at

http://blockexplorer.com/tx/9bea18121283bc7f9618eb8b50ce94e9df4698eb51468152fa686bfe94387d2d

Output zero is already taken. It's too bad it shows up, maybe tcatm can mark them as special in some way using the logs.

[carlerha]

I'm sorry for hijacking the thread. A transaction I made almost two weeks ago still has 0 confirmations in the receiving client. It's without an attached fee, but should I expect this much delay for it to be confirmed?
My client has of course catched up with the current block (126,438 as of now())
http://blockexplorer.com/t/8HRQXas8i6

[carlerha]

*bump* I'd be happy to get an answer here, what might be the reason for this? How can it be avoided in future transactions?