transactions wont confirm...

[Murdaversa]

80% of my transactions will not confirm and have not confirmed for the last 24 hours about 95% of them are from satoshidice.com.  I am using blockchain.info wallet and my address is 1Az7NhADZmP25yEzDqFhMnQbHChQfQkwwU
if anyone can help or give me advice i would greatly appreciate it.. thanks!!

[1714164500]

1714164500

[1714164500]

1714164500

[1714164500]

1714164500

[1714164500]

1714164500

[1714164500]

1714164500

[splatster]

Transactions of small amounts (like from satoshidice) which often don't include fees get a very low priority.  You just have to wait.

[Kluge]

Transactions of small amounts (like from satoshidice) which often don't include fees get a very low priority.  You just have to wait.

Isn't that more of a recent event where blocks are actually getting filled, largely because of SatoshiDice? I don't know -- would appreciate education.

[Murdaversa]

Transactions of small amounts (like from satoshidice) which often don't include fees get a very low priority.  You just have to wait.

Isn't that more of a recent event where blocks are actually getting filled, largely because of SatoshiDice? I don't know -- would appreciate education.

i dont know but i know i have added a transaction fee for .005 btc for each and every transaction i submitted, if you look up my address you would see the transactions...
i hope that pools are purposely not including transactions from satoshi dice because of how many of them there are, can someone tell me whats going on?

[JusticeForYou]

80% of my transactions will not confirm and have not confirmed for the last 24 hours about 95% of them are from satoshidice.com.  I am using blockchain.info wallet and my address is 1Az7NhADZmP25yEzDqFhMnQbHChQfQkwwU
if anyone can help or give me advice i would greatly appreciate it.. thanks!!

Go here: http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/txlist/

and search for your address, you should find 88 matches

[Kluge]

Transactions of small amounts (like from satoshidice) which often don't include fees get a very low priority.  You just have to wait.

Isn't that more of a recent event where blocks are actually getting filled, largely because of SatoshiDice? I don't know -- would appreciate education.

i dont know but i know i have added a transaction fee for .005 btc for each and every transaction i submitted, if you look up my address you would see the transactions...
i hope that pools are purposely not including transactions from satoshi dice because of how many of them there are, can someone tell me whats going on?

I believe (and again, I'm no expert, and really, probably shouldn't be responding) blocks only include 140 transactions. When there are >140 txs, low-priority txs are excluded, which is contingent more on size of the tx, how many "input addresses" are used, and fee included, not specifically because it was sent or received by SatoshiDice.

If it is because the blocks are being filled, then I'd assume the way to get your transactions included is to pay a higher fee so your transactions get higher priority (anything above the minimum would probably be included in the next block). Your transactions will probably be included in a block eventually, but if you keep paying low fees and this problem is due to txs needing to be prioritized due to high volume of transactions, if you keep sending the minimum fee (or if SatoshiDice does on their sends) on low-value txs with many "input addresses," this problem will persist. - But again, I'm no expert, and someone wiser than I will probably correct all the misinfo I may've just given you.

[Murdaversa]

Transactions of small amounts (like from satoshidice) which often don't include fees get a very low priority.  You just have to wait.

Isn't that more of a recent event where blocks are actually getting filled, largely because of SatoshiDice? I don't know -- would appreciate education.

i dont know but i know i have added a transaction fee for .005 btc for each and every transaction i submitted, if you look up my address you would see the transactions...
i hope that pools are purposely not including transactions from satoshi dice because of how many of them there are, can someone tell me whats going on?

I believe (and again, I'm no expert, and really, probably shouldn't be responding) blocks only include 140 transactions. When there are >140 txs, low-priority txs are excluded, which is contingent more on size of the tx, how many "input addresses" are used, and fee included, not specifically because it was sent or received by SatoshiDice.

If it is because the blocks are being filled, then I'd assume the way to get your transactions included is to pay a higher fee so your transactions get higher priority (anything above the minimum would probably be included in the next block). Your transactions will probably be included in a block eventually, but if you keep paying low fees and this problem is due to txs needing to be prioritized due to high volume of transactions, if you keep sending the minimum fee (or if SatoshiDice does on their sends) on low-value txs with many "input addresses," this problem will persist. - But again, I'm no expert, and someone wiser than I will probably correct all the misinfo I may've just given you.

Thanks for the reply and info... i did not know about the transaction limit.  I thought sending .005 as a tx fee was pretty good....lol i mostly see tx fees of.0005... the thing that is interesting me is that i have transations that are not to any or from a 1dice address that have no problem confirming... can a be a problem on the satoshi dice side? 

[Stephen Gornick]

I thought sending .005 as a tx fee was pretty good....lol i mostly see tx fees of.0005

Just to make sure there is no understanding, the fee you add when you send a transaction will not help nor hurt the payout transaction from SatoshiDICE.  They are two completely separate transactions as far as any benefit from adding fees go.

The amount and the age of the coins used in the spend are relevant.  Bitcoin wasn't designed to be a microtransaction payment system so smaller SatoshiDICE wagers and payouts (particularly on the losing wagers) will appear to the network to be spam-like.  The more popular SatoshiDICE (and other ways microtransactions occur) becomes more popular the problem as you describe will become more widely felt.

[splatster]

Transactions of small amounts (like from satoshidice) which often don't include fees get a very low priority.  You just have to wait.

Isn't that more of a recent event where blocks are actually getting filled, largely because of SatoshiDice? I don't know -- would appreciate education.

Yes, SatoshiDice is largely to blame for the massive boom in transactions.

Here's an interesting chart to show what order of magnitude the number of transactions has increased by: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions

[Murdaversa]

I thought sending .005 as a tx fee was pretty good....lol i mostly see tx fees of.0005

Just to make sure there is no understanding, the fee you add when you send a transaction will not help nor hurt the payout transaction from SatoshiDICE.  They are two completely separate transactions as far as any benefit from adding fees go.

The amount and the age of the coins used in the spend are relevant.  Bitcoin wasn't designed to be a microtransaction payment system so smaller SatoshiDICE wagers and payouts (particularly on the losing wagers) will appear to the network to be spam-like.  The more popular SatoshiDICE (and other ways microtransactions occur) becomes more popular the problem as you describe will become more widely felt.

im guessing that they were just super slow at confirming but everything seems to be fine now, all my transaction confirmed... Thanks everyone for the info and replies!! i greatly appreciate it!!

[Kluge]

Transactions of small amounts (like from satoshidice) which often don't include fees get a very low priority.  You just have to wait.

Isn't that more of a recent event where blocks are actually getting filled, largely because of SatoshiDice? I don't know -- would appreciate education.

Yes, SatoshiDice is largely to blame for the massive boom in transactions.

Here's an interesting chart to show what order of magnitude the number of transactions has increased by: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions

If we consistently had 14k+ transactions every day (right now, looks like there're occasionally day where there's a net loss of unconfirmed transactions in queue), isn't it reasonable to assume low-priority transactions which already aren't included will likely never be included, and the longer we go with consistently >14k transactions, the more difficult it will be to have a transaction included in a block?

I guess I'm kind of surprised txs aren't given a higher priority if they've been in queue for a longer amount of time. I mean - if there's a tx which hasn't gone through in a week, and the queue of unconfirmed transactions is growing every day, those coins are probably effectively "lost," yeah?

[DeathAndTaxes]

I guess I'm kind of surprised txs aren't given a higher priority if they've been in queue for a longer amount of time. I mean - if there's a tx which hasn't gone through in a week, and the queue of unconfirmed transactions is growing every day, those coins are probably effectively "lost," yeah?

The coin age clock keeps running.  Eventually the tx will have enough priority (combination of coin size & coin age) because coin age keeps growing.

The network doesn't look at only age, it looks at output value * age.  So yes "younger tx" can have higher priority if they are larger.

[Kluge]

I guess I'm kind of surprised txs aren't given a higher priority if they've been in queue for a longer amount of time. I mean - if there's a tx which hasn't gone through in a week, and the queue of unconfirmed transactions is growing every day, those coins are probably effectively "lost," yeah?

The coin age clock keeps running.  Eventually the tx will have enough priority (combination of coin size & coin age) because coin age keeps growing.

The network doesn't look at only age, it looks at output value * age.  So yes "younger tx" can have higher priority if they are larger.

Thanks for informing me. I didn't know priority increases with coin age.

[DeathAndTaxes]

No problem here are the relevant calculations.

Transaction priority is calculated as a value-weighted sum of input age, divided by transaction size in bytes:
priority = sum(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes

Transactions need to have a priority above 57,600,000 to avoid the enforced limit. This threshold is written in the code as COIN * 144 / 250, suggesting that the threshold represents a one day old, 1 btc coin (144 is the expected number of blocks per day) and a transaction size of 250 bytes.

So, for example, a transaction that has 2 inputs, one of 5 btc with 10 confirmations, and one of 2 btc with 3 confirmations, and has a size of 500bytes, will have a priority of  (500000000 * 10 + 200000000 * 3) / 500 = 11,800,000

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

So the only txs which should get stuck permanently are either malformed ones or ones which violate the seperate "dust spam" rule.  If a tx is <0.01 in size it must contain a tx fee.  This rule is separate from the priority based rules so a tx rejected by pools will continue to be rejected by pools regardless of how old the tx becomes.  Of course one can always double spend their own stuck tx or mine it in their own block.

[unclemantis]

I have a 0.50 transaction that has not confirmed even ONCE in 72 HOURS! The fee was 0.00005.

This is the TXID 4be629ba38ac7ba8fa882acf7d54ca8b4c5eeec30ae489ba80062009c52a3aea

[unclemantis]

No problem here are the relevant calculations.

Transaction priority is calculated as a value-weighted sum of input age, divided by transaction size in bytes:
priority = sum(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes

Transactions need to have a priority above 57,600,000 to avoid the enforced limit. This threshold is written in the code as COIN * 144 / 250, suggesting that the threshold represents a one day old, 1 btc coin (144 is the expected number of blocks per day) and a transaction size of 250 bytes.

So, for example, a transaction that has 2 inputs, one of 5 btc with 10 confirmations, and one of 2 btc with 3 confirmations, and has a size of 500bytes, will have a priority of  (500000000 * 10 + 200000000 * 3) / 500 = 11,800,000

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

So the only txs which should get stuck permanently are either malformed ones or ones which violate the seperate "dust spam" rule.  If a tx is <0.01 in size it must contain a tx fee.  This rule is separate from the priority based rules so a tx rejected by pools will continue to be rejected by pools regardless of how old the tx becomes.  Of course one can always double spend their own stuck tx or mine it in their own block.

Multibit will not allow me to spend unconfirmed TXs. So what are you saying? Export the private key? Insert it in to bitcoind and blast away at satoshidice? That is SO not cool.

[racerguy]

I can't understand why pools don't include transactions that include a fee, why throw away easy money?

[DeathAndTaxes]

I can't understand why pools don't include transactions that include a fee, why throw away easy money?

Because it isn't so "easy".  Larger blocks are more likely to be orphaned.  If miners were only paid with fees that wouldn't matter but miners receive a subsidy; currently the subsidy is very high relative to the value of fees.

By including say 200 more tx at 0.0005 ea the miner/pool will produce a block which is worth 0.1 BTC more however if they increase their orphan rate by say 1% then they actually lose 50 * 1% = 0.5 BTC.   The pool/miner long term revenue per block declines by 0.4 BTC.

Is this a problem?  Not in the long term.   The fee was reduced to 0.0005 from 0.01 when BTC:USD exceeded $20.  Had BTC price continued to rise ($33, $50, $150+) it likely would have been a good idea however the price fell making the "value" of 0.0005 BTC tx to a miner much less. 

The issue becomes fees are a negligible relative to the subsidy.  In time three things will change that
1) The subsidy is being reduced to 25 BTC in dec (and 12.5 BTC in little over four years)
2) The value of BTC is rising.
3) The number of tx are rising.
4) The avg fee per tx are rising.

To put it into perspective today all fees make up <1% of block reward however if over the next year the number of transactions doubled, the subsidy is cut in half, and avg fee per tx rises 50% then fees would be worth closer to 5% of total miner compensation.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Multibit will not allow me to spend unconfirmed TXs. So what are you saying? Export the private key? Insert it in to bitcoind and blast away at satoshidice? That is SO not cool.

No I am saying if you have a "stuck tx" you can delete it from your wallet (this will prevent wallet from continually broadcasting it).  In time peers will forget about the stuck tx and you can spend the coins again.  If the tx isn't just stuck but actively been dropped by peers/pools you don't even need to wait you could double spend it right away.

[unclemantis]

My issue got fixed. It was a Multibit issue. Had to reset the blockchain and transactions. Again only do this if told so by Multibit admins!

Thank you multibit!