Can anyone explain this?

[PhilipMorris]

My friend was having some fun over at Luckyb.it yesterday, however a few of his deposits are still not confirmed after like 20 hours. He sent more deposits after this, and they all got like 80 confirmations allready. He gave the same fees on all transactions. So, why are these transactions not confirming? his BTC address: https://blockchain.info/address/13LDuELaqAkE6fRSXfttBJgLJBsUs67Nt4

[1714752130]

1714752130

[1714752130]

1714752130

[1714752130]

1714752130

[1714752130]

1714752130

[1714752130]

1714752130

[LiteCoinGuy]

maybe that site is just a scam site which steals your money i would guess.

[PhilipMorris]

Yea, that totally explains why the transactions are not confirming in the Bitcoin blockchain

[Enfield]

Luckybit isn't a scam site (unless you were sending to a clone scamsite or something?). Has the money been showing up at luckybit? How many confirmations do they need?

[Meuh6879]

Use a real reader of confirmed blocks, instead ... http://btc.blockr.io/address/info/13LDuELaqAkE6fRSXfttBJgLJBsUs67Nt4

[PhilipMorris]

Use a real reader of confirmed blocks, instead ... http://btc.blockr.io/address/info/13LDuELaqAkE6fRSXfttBJgLJBsUs67Nt4

Thanks.. I knew it, Blockchain.info screwing us over again. Ive had this before, transactions only appear on Blockchain.info explorer, but in no other block explorers the transactions can be found, meaning the transactions have not even been made. Wtf is up with Blockchain? Do you know of a more reliable wallet service? (for iPhone)

[teukon]

Tracing input history I quickly ran into this transaction.  It doesn't seem to exist in my node's mempool and, when I try to add it, I get the error "64: non-canonical (code -26)".  Looking up code -26 in the source I see that this transaction doesn't conform to "network rules".  The transaction is also not listed at mempool.info and while blockr.io is happy to decode the raw-hex, it returns a general error "pushing your transaction to network".

[Pingu]

Use a real reader of confirmed blocks, instead ... http://btc.blockr.io/address/info/13LDuELaqAkE6fRSXfttBJgLJBsUs67Nt4

Thanks.. I knew it, Blockchain.info screwing us over again. Ive had this before, transactions only appear on Blockchain.info explorer, but in no other block explorers the transactions can be found, meaning the transactions have not even been made. Wtf is up with Blockchain? Do you know of a more reliable wallet service? (for iPhone)

If in doubt always check an alternative block explorer. To say blockchain.info is the most popular one it can lag behind quite often. They really should do something about this.

[Flashman]

I've been noticing it go screwy quite often recently also. Like showing the latest blocks with only the 25BTC block reward no tx, or more bizarrely, showing them with 50 btc block reward...

[rayhan]

come there and lets talk to mods
they will help your friends bet
 no worries

[Muhammed Zakir]

Use a real reader of confirmed blocks, instead ... http://btc.blockr.io/address/info/13LDuELaqAkE6fRSXfttBJgLJBsUs67Nt4

Thanks.. I knew it, Blockchain.info screwing us over again. Ive had this before, transactions only appear on Blockchain.info explorer, but in no other block explorers the transactions can be found, meaning the transactions have not even been made. Wtf is up with Blockchain? Do you know of a more reliable wallet service? (for iPhone)

I have heard that too. But still it is the most used block explorer. Even though there is problem with explorer, the wallet is a good one. If you aren't satisfied, you can use green address or bither.

   ~~MZ~~

[PhilipMorris]

The transactions were sent from a laggy connection, 3G on an iPhone. But the coins are not lost in space now are they? They will eventually return to the wallet right? I have expirienced this problem my self with larger transactions, when I was trying to sell BTC for Euro's in my bankaccount. I have called the selling company and they said they often have Blockchain users with the same problem. I then emailed Blockchain.info a few times, but they are 'not aware' of this problem and kept telling me that I had to give more fees. I gave 5x the normal fee, same problem. This really sucks for me, I think I have to download the Electrum wallet. But they have no iOS app which I need. 

[ujka]

My friend was having some fun over at Luckyb.it yesterday, however a few of his deposits are still not confirmed after like 20 hours. He sent more deposits after this, and they all got like 80 confirmations allready. He gave the same fees on all transactions. So, why are these transactions not confirming? his BTC address: https://blockchain.info/address/13LDuELaqAkE6fRSXfttBJgLJBsUs67Nt4

First unconfirmed TX (friend receiving btc: https://blockchain.info/tx/b6acf795ed0bc7df1128b3d6f962456c7ae2ec24fe683aecb83817f4515263e3) has some non-standard input, and it is not picked-up by any miner and included in a block. Don't know what that non-standard input means, nor how it was created.

All later unconfirmed transactions are trying to use the output from that TX.

[scarsbergholden]

Tracing input history I quickly ran into this transaction.  It doesn't seem to exist in my node's mempool and, when I try to add it, I get the error "64: non-canonical (code -26)".  Looking up code -26 in the source I see that this transaction doesn't conform to "network rules".  The transaction is also not listed at mempool.info and while blockr.io is happy to decode the raw-hex, it returns a general error "pushing your transaction to network".

So it sounds like the TL,DR version is that the transactions depends on another unconfirmed transaction that will never get confirmed because it is non-standard, and as a result the transaction in the OP will never get confirmed.

[ujka]

So it sounds like the TL,DR version is that the transactions depends on another unconfirmed transaction that will never get confirmed because it is non-standard, and as a result the transaction in the OP will never get confirmed.

Not only that first TX has non-standard input(s), it's not even propagated to the network - it is not in the mempool waiting to be included in a block by miners (http://mempool.info site can't find any of these unconfirmed tx in the mempool).

[cesckat]

As someone pointed before, transactions are confirmed by miners, and you can check the last movements from that address on other blockexplorers just to be secure:

• https://www.biteasy.com/blockchain/addresses/13LDuELaqAkE6fRSXfttBJgLJBsUs67Nt4
• https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/address/13LDuELaqAkE6fRSXfttBJgLJBsUs67Nt4/transactions

And from your wallet 'transactions section' 

More than 100 confirmations on their transactions so the problem could be Luckyb.it responsibility… 

[scarsbergholden]

So it sounds like the TL,DR version is that the transactions depends on another unconfirmed transaction that will never get confirmed because it is non-standard, and as a result the transaction in the OP will never get confirmed.

Not only that first TX has non-standard input(s), it's not even propagated to the network - it is not in the mempool waiting to be included in a block by miners (http://mempool.info site can't find any of these unconfirmed tx in the mempool).

Well every node's mempool is different, so just because it is not in your mempool or the mempool of mempool.info does not mean that it is not in other node's mempool's.

It is obviously in blockchain.info's mempool (the mempool of their node) as they are showing the TX on their site/block explorer.

I saw a thread that was discussing the fact that blockchain.info's node will accept certain transactions that will be rejected by other nodes and as a result the TX will never get confirmed. This could be an example of this. Someone did mention that you could get the TX confirmed by submitting the signed TX to the node of f2pool aka discuss fish or eligius

[teukon]

I saw a thread that was discussing the fact that blockchain.info's node will accept certain transactions that will be rejected by other nodes and as a result the TX will never get confirmed. This could be an example of this. Someone did mention that you could get the TX confirmed by submitting the signed TX to the node of f2pool aka discuss fish or eligius

Thought I'd try this just as a learning opportunity.  I worked with the ancestor transaction I identified earlier which itself has 6, well-confirmed, seemingly innocent inputs.

Submitting either the raw transaction or the equivalent hex to eligius results in error code -22 (Error parsing or validating structure in raw format).

Perhaps the transaction is not just non-standard but out-right invalid (even if it were included in a block that block would be rejected by all the standard nodes).  Unfortunately, I know of no tool which will tell me why any given raw transaction is invalid and I lack the knowledge to work it out myself with reference to Bitcoin Core's code in a timely fashion.

[wunkbone]

I saw a thread that was discussing the fact that blockchain.info's node will accept certain transactions that will be rejected by other nodes and as a result the TX will never get confirmed. This could be an example of this. Someone did mention that you could get the TX confirmed by submitting the signed TX to the node of f2pool aka discuss fish or eligius

Thought I'd try this just as a learning opportunity.  I worked with the ancestor transaction I identified earlier which itself has 6, well-confirmed, seemingly innocent inputs.

Submitting either the raw transaction or the equivalent hex to eligius results in error code -22 (Error parsing or validating structure in raw format).

Perhaps the transaction is not just non-standard but out-right invalid (even if it were included in a block that block would be rejected by all the standard nodes).  Unfortunately, I know of no tool which will tell me why any given raw transaction is invalid and I lack the knowledge to work it out myself with reference to Bitcoin Core's code in a timely fashion.

This is certainly possible, but I cannot imagine why blockchain.info would accept the TX on their node (which would have had to have happened if it is displayed on their block explorer) if the TX is outright invalid.

edit: it appears that the TX in question has since fallen out of their mem pool

[gravitate]

Weird but happened to me too