transactions don't get confirmed

[yakuza699]

Okay he paid me, transactions
66c3bb89e6d15acef0edbd4a7554789e52a9597d49ea22b1030774bdb6769c33
4ed44d8d3a2c8cfef1bdae739fd20cf09b63f9acf930682a02b65ec57279c344
1d39badf5f53a5066dd3a13b319b206bbd6a680a9b031d607bbaee9de0a8d251
9b579d773bd6f6810bf1976a33794e3f451a04d7f98200d3700bdbbe14a8b7ec
75a0fbe416794386d5a7a4e876e2e8d4d0237de46f7361029966883cb277ec94
72397123a772dc7cb0f23fec672ace2218e716f49d9d49923ebbda9f3a72900b
84684c63455178196503e3cd80863c5edb96cdfe2a7943e33e10e6778f2d34c3
94d4041e9225699471a58efd56b3f11f4c990736d4644533c74dc3565c1068d5
37dcacb1c678044b4dfad9930983d5083ab015532350c5a3115c0a1df4e7ace2

Should be confirmed in no longer than 1 hour.

[leen93]

ok, bitcoin is more complex than i thought after all
i tried but i failed
think i did something wrong with the fees
so lets take wallet A B(100 addresses) C D(100 addresses)
A transfers 100 BTC and 0.1 mbtc to B

How many transactions has A received?  Did it receive the entire 100 BTC in a single transaction to just one of the addresses?  Did it receive 100 transactions sent to each address valued at 0.01 BTC per transaction (for a total of 10000 transactions?

Every transaction received at A is a completely separate output.  They are not merged together as the are received.  The number of outputs determines the size of the transactions as well as the amount of change that is tied up in a transaction sent from wallet A.
  

(each B receives 1 BTC )

Ok, so regardless of how many transactions A received, B is going to send 100 BTC in a single transaction with 100 separate outputs each valued at 1 BTC?

Now B has 100 outputs each valued at 1 BTC.

all the B together send 0.999999 BTC each to C + 0.1 mbtc fee
C receives 99.9999 BTC (100 times 0.999999)

This is all 100 outputs from B spent together in a single transaction to C?  Or is this 100 separate transactions from B to C?

If it is 100 outputs in a single transaction, then the transaction will be nearly 30,000 bytes in size.  At a fee of 0.1 mBTC per 1000 bytes, you will need to include a fee of at least 3.0 mBTC.  Also, it would have been faster, cheaper and easier to just send the 100 BTC from A to C and avoid all the fees and mess that you created with B.

If it is 100 separate outputs to C, then C now has 100 outputs each valued at 0.99999 BTC.  Wouldn't it have been faster and easier to just send the bitcoins directly to C and skip all the mess and cost associated with sending to B?

C can spend 0.999899 100 times immediately to the different D addresses. (0.1 mbtc fee)

Do they need to be separate transactions, or are you okay with sending all 100 outputs from the same transaction?  If all 100 outputs can be from the same transaction, then you could have just done that from A and skipped this whole expensive and time consuming mess.  If all 100 outputs need to be from 100 separate transactions, then you could have done that from B.

I failed and forgot about the fee so instead of 0.999999 btc i did it with 1 btc which made blockchain taking together many different transactions B-C and left some empty so i cant transfer 100 times in 1 time anymore

You really need to explain what you are trying to accomplish instead of how you are trying to do it.  You clearly don't understand how bitcoin transactions work, and therefore are wandering down some convoluted and winding paths that are almost certainly not necessary.

Can someone confirm if those numbers are right? (i'm doing transfers in smaller amounts but to make it easy i used 1 btc)

You'll need to be careful about smaller amounts.  You can end up with transactions that have outputs that are so small that peers won't relay them.

and another thing: how do I do the last step C-D the fastest (because they all need to be in the same block but in a different transaction) ?

Unless you mine the block yourself, it is impossible to guarantee that the transactions will be confirmed in the same block.  The miner (or mining pool) that mines the block gets to choose which transactions they want to include in the block.  They *might* include all of your transactions, but they *might* leave some of your transactions for someone else to confirm in a later block.

If you can solve this problem for me (A-C works perfectly with blockchain API but have no idea how to program 100 transactions in the blockchain api, they are always in 1 transaction
bitcoin core is still and will still take a few days with the torrent I used.
Getting more and more experienced with bitcoin. The last step is to make a lot of those C-D transactions by just a few clicks. This will make me a lot of money for a small time and if you could help me out I'll give you a part of it). I really appreaciate all your help

Wouldn't it be easier to just send a single transaction from A that has 100 outputs sending whatever amount you want per output?  If they truly need to be separate transactions, then you can split up the balance to separate outputs (Do they really need to be separate addresses?  Can't you just send 100 transactions each spending a separate output that was received at the same address?).  Keep in mind that if you have 100 transactions, there really isn't any way to be certain that they will all be confirmed in the same block.

Yes, but the problem is I can't do a lot of transactions from 1 address. If I do 1 I need to wait for 1 confirmation, unless I received the funds in the same amount (what I try to manage in this way), right? Yes, I could surpass C, that's right but I did it to make it easier, isn't it easier to send 100 transactions from 1 address (outputs BC = inputs CD + fee so i dont need to wait for the confirmations) instead of doing it from different addresses? I just need a way to do a lot of transactions, from 1 or more differnt adresses is not that important as long as only 1 address is used as input in each transaction.
If X receives 10*1 BTC it can send 10 times 1 BTC, or 10 times 0.1 BTC and then it's over? right?
And yes, I really need fast a lot of seperate transactions from 1 address to 1 address.
and they shouldn't be all included in the next block but as much as possible.

[gasdw86]

usually i do not pay fee and after 10-40 minutes have first confirm !

[yakuza699]

usually i do not pay fee and after 10-40 minutes have first confirm !

That is because you are probably sending big amounts of coins and those coins are old enough, meaning that transactions has high priority and will be confirmed soon.

[leen93]

omg
now i included a fee
https://blockchain.info/tx/a224898a63430a6c33e9d2e6517cc607bcd37cb0f98eaa723be66a15874e584e
but those transactions are also going to take forever? 

[DannyHamilton]

Yes, but the problem is I can't do a lot of transactions from 1 address. If I do 1 I need to wait for 1 confirmation, unless I received the funds in the same amount (what I try to manage in this way), right?

That is not correct.  Bitcoin doesn't send "from addresses".  It spends unspent outputs.  A single address can receive multiple outputs.  If you spend an output in a transaction, then the change from that transaction shouldn't be spent until that transaction is confirmed. (It can be spent, but it is a risky thing to do since someone else can change your original transaction in a way that makes subsequent transactions invalid).  Meanwhile all the other unspent outputs that were received at the same address can still be spend without waiting for any more confirmations.

As an example:

Assume you have address 1myaddress...

You receive 4 transactions at 1myaddress...

• The first transaction is 1 BTC
• The second transaction is 0.5 BTC
• The third transaction is 3 BTC
• The fourth transaction is 1.5 BTC

You now have received a total of 6 BTC at 1myaddress...  You have 4 separate unspent outputs.

Now, lets say you want to send 3.25 BTC from your wallet.  Your wallet might choose to spend the outputs that were received in the second and third transaction, supplying a total of 3 + 0.5 = 3.5 BTC of value to the transaction.  This transaction then sends 3.25 of that value in a new output to the recipient.  There is 0.25 BTC of value remaining unaccounted for in the transaction.  If you don't do anything with this value, then it becomes a transaction fee for the miners.  Instead, you create a second output in the same transaction which sends 0.2499 BTC to an address you control.  It might be 1myaddress... or it might be some other address, it doesn't really matter.  Now the transaction has 2 outputs, one for 3.25 BTC to your recipient, and one for 0.2499 BTC back to you.  The remaining 0.0001 BTC of value that is unaccounted for becomes a transaction fee for the miner.

Meanwhile, your wallet still has the first and fourth transactions that have been untouched.  This means that you have 0.2499 BTC in your wallet that is still waiting to be confirmed before it can be used in a new transaction, and 1 + 1.5 = 2.5 BTC in your wallet that can still be sent immediately.

Yes, I could surpass C, that's right but I did it to make it easier, isn't it easier to send 100 transactions from 1 address (outputs BC = inputs CD + fee so i dont need to wait for the confirmations) instead of doing it from different addresses?

Nope. An unspent output is an unspent output.  Bitcoin doesn't care what address it was received at.

I just need a way to do a lot of transactions, from 1 or more differnt adresses is not that important as long as only 1 address is used as input in each transaction.

Addresses are not used as intputs to transactions.  Unspent outputs are.  I assume that for some reason you want all the previously unspent outputs that a single transaction spends to have been received at the same address as each other (if there are more than one in the transaction).

If X receives 10*1 BTC it can send 10 times 1 BTC, or 10 times 0.1 BTC and then it's over? right?

I'm not certain that I am properly understanding what you are saying here.

I think you are saying that if an address (X) receives 10 separate outputs that have all been confirmed, then each of those outputs can be used once and then they should be confirmed before you try to use them again?  If that is what you are saying, then you are correct.

And yes, I really need fast a lot of seperate transactions from 1 address to 1 address.
and they shouldn't be all included in the next block but as much as possible.

I'm surprised that it isn't sufficient for a lot of separate outputs.  There aren't very many situations where separate transactions are necessary.  It certainly would be cheaper to send all the separate outputs in a single transaction.  If you really want separate transactions, then you have 2 choices:

Either create a transaction that breaks up your balance into enough separate outputs so that each transaction has one output that it can spend.

Or create a chain of unconfirmed transactions and hope that nobody modifies any of them in a way that will change their transactionID.

[DannyHamilton]

omg
now i included a fee
https://blockchain.info/tx/a224898a63430a6c33e9d2e6517cc607bcd37cb0f98eaa723be66a15874e584e
but those transactions are also going to take forever? 

The transaction is low priority due to the fact that it is larger than 1000 bytes and the fee isn't large enough.

You could have created a higher priority transaction if you had only included 2 or 3 of those inputs instead of all 7 of them.

[leen93]

Yes, but the problem is I can't do a lot of transactions from 1 address. If I do 1 I need to wait for 1 confirmation, unless I received the funds in the same amount (what I try to manage in this way), right?

That is not correct.  Bitcoin doesn't send "from addresses".  It spends unspent outputs.  A single address can receive multiple outputs.  If you spend an output in a transaction, then the change from that transaction shouldn't be spent until that transaction is confirmed. (It can be spent, but it is a risky thing to do since someone else can change your original transaction in a way that makes subsequent transactions invalid).  Meanwhile all the other unspent outputs that were received at the same address can still be spend without waiting for any more confirmations.

As an example:

Assume you have address 1myaddress...

You receive 4 transactions at 1myaddress...

• The first transaction is 1 BTC
• The second transaction is 0.5 BTC
• The third transaction is 3 BTC
• The fourth transaction is 1.5 BTC

You now have received a total of 6 BTC at 1myaddress...  You have 4 separate unspent outputs.

Now, lets say you want to send 3.25 BTC from your wallet.  Your wallet might choose to spend the outputs that were received in the second and third transaction, supplying a total of 3 + 0.5 = 3.5 BTC of value to the transaction.  This transaction then sends 3.25 of that value in a new output to the recipient.  There is 0.25 BTC of value remaining unaccounted for in the transaction.  If you don't do anything with this value, then it becomes a transaction fee for the miners.  Instead, you create a second output in the same transaction which sends 0.2499 BTC to an address you control.  It might be 1myaddress... or it might be some other address, it doesn't really matter.  Now the transaction has 2 outputs, one for 3.25 BTC to your recipient, and one for 0.2499 BTC back to you.  The remaining 0.0001 BTC of value that is unaccounted for becomes a transaction fee for the miner.

Meanwhile, your wallet still has the first and fourth transactions that have been untouched.  This means that you have 0.2499 BTC in your wallet that is still waiting to be confirmed before it can be used in a new transaction, and 1 + 1.5 = 2.5 BTC in your wallet that can still be sent immediately.

Yes, I could surpass C, that's right but I did it to make it easier, isn't it easier to send 100 transactions from 1 address (outputs BC = inputs CD + fee so i dont need to wait for the confirmations) instead of doing it from different addresses?

Nope. An unspent output is an unspent output.  Bitcoin doesn't care what address it was received at.

I just need a way to do a lot of transactions, from 1 or more differnt adresses is not that important as long as only 1 address is used as input in each transaction.

Addresses are not used as intputs to transactions.  Unspent outputs are.  I assume that for some reason you want all the previously unspent outputs that a single transaction spends to have been received at the same address as each other (if there are more than one in the transaction).

If X receives 10*1 BTC it can send 10 times 1 BTC, or 10 times 0.1 BTC and then it's over? right?

I'm not certain that I am properly understanding what you are saying here.

I think you are saying that if an address (X) receives 10 separate outputs that have all been confirmed, then each of those outputs can be used once and then they should be confirmed before you try to use them again?  If that is what you are saying, then you are correct.

And yes, I really need fast a lot of seperate transactions from 1 address to 1 address.
and they shouldn't be all included in the next block but as much as possible.

I'm surprised that it isn't sufficient for a lot of separate outputs.  There aren't very many situations where separate transactions are necessary.  It certainly would be cheaper to send all the separate outputs in a single transaction.  If you really want separate transactions, then you have 2 choices:

Either create a transaction that breaks up your balance into enough separate outputs so that each transaction has one output that it can spend.

Or create a chain of unconfirmed transactions and hope that nobody modifies any of them in a way that will change their transactionID.

I think you are saying that if an address (X) receives 10 separate outputs that have all been confirmed, then each of those outputs can be used once and then they should be confirmed before you try to use them again?  If that is what you are saying, then you are correct.

that was indeed what i meant, sorry, i'ù bad a explaining, but the problem is all about surpassing this problem.

Either create a transaction that breaks up your balance into enough separate outputs so that each transaction has one output that it can spend.

That's what I'm doing now, that's my plan right?

Or create a chain of unconfirmed transactions and hope that nobody modifies any of them in a way that will change their transactionID.

I don't really understand what you mean with this

tx for your help!

[leen93]

OMG,
After just thinking a bit after your post
I can just keep 1 address
and transfer 1 BTC from that address to that same address 100 times (in 1 transaction)
then I'll be able to send 0.9999 BTC + 0.1 mbtc to any address (D in the example), right?
At least it's indeed surpassed all the steps A till C (but they were not time consuming, the time consuming part is still transfer to D)
Is it possible to make more transactions in https://blockchain.info/nl/api/blockchain_wallet_api in 1 URL? Probably not?


UPDATE : I tried but it didn't work, tried to include the receiving address more times in the transaction but it only showed up once with the total amount

[DannyHamilton]

Either create a transaction that breaks up your balance into enough separate outputs so that each transaction has one output that it can spend.

That's what I'm doing now, that's my plan right?

Yes, although you are going through quite a few extra and unnecessary steps to accomplish it.

Multiple wallets? Multiple addresses?  What a mess.

One wallet with 2 addresses:
Address A has received a total of more than 100 BTC.

Create 100 transactions to send 1 BTC to address B.

Now address B has 100 outputs each valued at 1 BTC.

Create 100 transactions that each spend exactly 1 output that was received at address B.

Broadcast all 100 transactions at once.

Done.

Or create a chain of unconfirmed transactions and hope that nobody modifies any of them in a way that will change their transactionID.


I don't really understand what you mean with this

This is what you did at the beginning of this thread.

You sent a first transaction (unfortunately without a fee).

Then you spent the output from that first transaction in a second transaction before the first transaction has confirmed.
Then you spent the output from that second transaction in a third transaction before the second transaction has confirmed.
Then you spent the output from that third transaction in a fourth transaction before the third transaction has confirmed.
And so on.

You could to the same with 100 transactions all spending the output of the previous transaction.  This is not safe and carries some risks.
If you make an error in an earlier transaction it can effect the later transactions (Such as accidentally failing to include a transaction fee, and then none of the later transactions confirm).
There is also a risk that some of the transactions will be rejected if anyone modifies any of the transactions to result in a different transactionID.

If these risks are acceptable, it is a relatively easy way to create 100 transactions from a single balance.

[DannyHamilton]

OMG,
After just thinking a bit after your post
I can just keep 1 address
and transfer 1 BTC from that address to that same address 100 times (in 1 transaction)
then I'll be able to send 0.9999 BTC + 0.1 mbtc to any address (D in the example), right?

Yes.  That's what I said.

At least it's indeed surpassed all the steps A till C (but they were not time consuming, the time consuming part is still transfer to D)
Is it possible to make more transactions in https://blockchain.info/nl/api/blockchain_wallet_api in 1 URL? Probably not?

I don't really use blockchain.info AP at all.  If you want to use blockchain.info API, then you'll probably need to get help from someone else.

[DannyHamilton]

Okay he paid me, transactions

- snip -

Should be confirmed in no longer than 1 hour.

It has been an hour.

None of the transactions has confirmed yet.

Please immediately refund the payment or risk being labeled a thief and a scammer.

[leen93]

Either create a transaction that breaks up your balance into enough separate outputs so that each transaction has one output that it can spend.

That's what I'm doing now, that's my plan right?

Yes, although you are going through quite a few extra and unnecessary steps to accomplish it.

Multiple wallets? Multiple addresses?  What a mess.

One wallet with 2 addresses:
Address A has received a total of more than 100 BTC.

Create 100 transactions to send 1 BTC to address B.

Now address B has 100 outputs each valued at 1 BTC.

Create 100 transactions that each spend exactly 1 output that was received at address B.

Broadcast all 100 transactions at once.

Done.

Or create a chain of unconfirmed transactions and hope that nobody modifies any of them in a way that will change their transactionID.


I don't really understand what you mean with this

This is what you did at the beginning of this thread.

You sent a first transaction (unfortunately without a fee).

Then you spent the output from that first transaction in a second transaction before the first transaction has confirmed.
Then you spent the output from that second transaction in a third transaction before the second transaction has confirmed.
Then you spent the output from that third transaction in a fourth transaction before the third transaction has confirmed.
And so on.

You could to the same with 100 transactions all spending the output of the previous transaction.  This is not safe and carries some risks.
If you make an error in an earlier transaction it can effect the later transactions (Such as accidentally failing to include a transaction fee, and then none of the later transactions confirm).
There is also a risk that some of the transactions will be rejected if anyone modifies any of the transactions to result in a different transactionID.

If these risks are acceptable, it is a relatively easy way to create 100 transactions from a single balance.

Yes, taht would also work but ask more transaction (200 instead of 102), but the problem is how do i make 100 transactions...
all seperaetily in blockchain? that's the reason i made the extra steps, i'm not able to do that in an efficient way and dont know if its possible?

[leen93]

Okay he paid me, transactions

- snip -

Should be confirmed in no longer than 1 hour.

It has been an hour.

None of the transactions has confirmed yet.

Please immediately refund the payment or risk being labeled a thief and a scammer.

indeed, I paid 0.01 + 0.0001 fee to him (can prove the transaction in the blockchain if you want) but not even 1 confirmation yet 

[leen93]

OMG,
After just thinking a bit after your post
I can just keep 1 address
and transfer 1 BTC from that address to that same address 100 times (in 1 transaction)
then I'll be able to send 0.9999 BTC + 0.1 mbtc to any address (D in the example), right?

Yes.  That's what I said.

At least it's indeed surpassed all the steps A till C (but they were not time consuming, the time consuming part is still transfer to D)
Is it possible to make more transactions in https://blockchain.info/nl/api/blockchain_wallet_api in 1 URL? Probably not?

I don't really use blockchain.info AP at all.  If you want to use blockchain.info API, then you'll probably need to get help from someone else.

ok, thank you, what do you use? bitcoin core? I'm putting the torrent file in now but it takes a really long time

[Muhammed Zakir]

Okay he paid me, transactions

- snip -

Should be confirmed in no longer than 1 hour.

It has been an hour.

None of the transactions has confirmed yet.

Please immediately refund the payment or risk being labeled a thief and a scammer.

indeed, I paid 0.01 + 0.0001 fee to him (can prove the transaction in the blockchain if you want) but not even 1 confirmation yet 

He added low fees. Anyway, it has medium priority, so it will probably confirm soon.

   ~~MZ~~

[DannyHamilton]

Or create a chain of unconfirmed transactions and hope that nobody modifies any of them in a way that will change their transactionID.
I don't really understand what you mean with this

This is what you did at the beginning of this thread.

You sent a first transaction (unfortunately without a fee).

Then you spent the output from that first transaction in a second transaction before the first transaction has confirmed.
Then you spent the output from that second transaction in a third transaction before the second transaction has confirmed.
Then you spent the output from that third transaction in a fourth transaction before the third transaction has confirmed.
And so on.

You could to the same with 100 transactions all spending the output of the previous transaction.  This is not safe and carries some risks.
If you make an error in an earlier transaction it can effect the later transactions (Such as accidentally failing to include a transaction fee, and then none of the later transactions confirm).
There is also a risk that some of the transactions will be rejected if anyone modifies any of the transactions to result in a different transactionID.

If these risks are acceptable, it is a relatively easy way to create 100 transactions from a single balance.

Yes, taht would also work but ask more transaction (200 instead of 102),

No.  It should only require 100 transactions.

You create 100 transactions that all chain together like this and that each send to wherever it is that you are trying to send to.  Then you broadcast all 100 transactions at once.

but the problem is how do i make 100 transactions...

You'll either need to create them by hand, or write a program that will create them for you, or find a software tool that can accomplish it for you.

all seperaetily in blockchain? that's the reason i made the extra steps, i'm not able to do that in an efficient way and dont know if its possible?

It's possible.  But if you insist on using blockchain.info API then you'll probably need to get someone more experienced with that API to help you.

[DannyHamilton]

ok, thank you, what do you use? bitcoin core? I'm putting the torrent file in now but it takes a really long time

Yes, I use Bitcoin Core.

It does take a long time the first time you install it.  It also requires a lot of RAM and disk space.

[leen93]

I don't care what I'm using (just tried the blockchain API and it worked fine), as long as I don't need to download something for weeks it's fine
Maybe I should just give it up, but was pretty sure I could make some money with this but if I have to process them manually it will not be profitable...

[DannyHamilton]

Okay he paid me, transactions

- snip -

Should be confirmed in no longer than 1 hour.

It has been an hour.

None of the transactions has confirmed yet.

Please immediately refund the payment or risk being labeled a thief and a scammer.

indeed, I paid 0.01 + 0.0001 fee to him (can prove the transaction in the blockchain if you want) but not even 1 confirmation yet 

He added low fees. Anyway, it has medium priority, so it will probably confirm soon.

   ~~MZ~~

It doesn't matter if it confirms soon.  The commitment was to confirm within an hour.  This did not occur.

yakuza699 needs to either refund the payment, or he is a scammer and a thief.