24 Hours Unconfirmed. Status Conflicted??????

[Hellsgremlin]

So i have a few small transactions that will not become available in my wallet.   They dont even show as pending.   I also have transactions that are 12/ 13 hours hold that are still Unconfirmed.   any idea's what caused this and what i can to do fix it?

The wallet sent from
https://blockchain.info/address/1GkoAX4KoydkVxDdpXYyXpaKJwd8RFGZyA
Another wallet that is deposits are not confiriming to.
https://blockchain.info/address/1GcPwcKFLqYu1TWa1ewwaJrAYkPLmKGhf5   (at the very bottom of this of the page 3 deposits sit unconfirmed)

[1715157230]

1715157230

[1715157230]

1715157230

[1715157230]

1715157230

[shorena]

Because someone did not pay a fee for this transaction[1] and the ~100[2] transactions that are building on the output it creates can only be confirmed when its confirmed. If you want to follow the trail start at your tx[3] (next time just post the tx ID instead of the address) and click on "output" on the left side, it will lead you to a new transaction, click on "output" as long as you see a red "U". Oh, somewhere along the line someone probably tried to double spend something thus the "confliced". Probably best to stay away from ponzis. Ive never seen such a long chain of messy transactions.



[1] https://blockchain.info/tx/ad77ef1d977e511c3319bb06528765edc265bf8c3bc891c470130d060933d709
[2] I stoped counting about 5 minutes into the trail I was following
[3] https://blockchain.info/en/tx/e0c3a4a1a26233553061768deed843f4498f3eda9a851884c0c55ccffb993da9?show_adv=true

[Hellsgremlin]

Because someone did not pay a fee for this transaction[1] and the ~100[2] transactions that are building on the output it creates can only be confirmed when its confirmed. If you want to follow the trail start at your tx[3] (next time just post the tx ID instead of the address) and click on "output" on the left side, it will lead you to a new transaction, click on "output" as long as you see a red "U". Oh, somewhere along the line someone probably tried to double spend something thus the "confliced". Probably best to stay away from ponzis. Ive never seen such a long chain of messy transactions.



[1] https://blockchain.info/tx/ad77ef1d977e511c3319bb06528765edc265bf8c3bc891c470130d060933d709
[2] I stoped counting about 5 minutes into the trail I was following
[3] https://blockchain.info/en/tx/e0c3a4a1a26233553061768deed843f4498f3eda9a851884c0c55ccffb993da9?show_adv=true

so does it mean these funds are lost forever or just significantly delayed?

[shorena]

-snip-
so does it mean these funds are lost forever or just significantly delayed?

Too early to tell. Conflicted is never a good sign. If someone goes through all the trouble to create such a long chain of transactions that all depend on two[1] TX without fee, has several big (size in byte) TX with low fee in between and is created in a way to obfuscate this I would not get my hopes up to get paid any time soon. Im not even sure if this is intentional, but however owns the address 1DqCqiSWw7u5VGH16DQy5MNDDC9G7dVwLf[2] has a lot of catching up to do confirmation wise.


[1] I am not 100% certain, but IIRC the one directly after the first without fee was also without a fee.
[2] https://blockchain.info/address/1DqCqiSWw7u5VGH16DQy5MNDDC9G7dVwLf

[Hellsgremlin]

-snip-
so does it mean these funds are lost forever or just significantly delayed?

Too early to tell. Conflicted is never a good sign. If someone goes through all the trouble to create such a long chain of transactions that all depend on two[1] TX without fee, has several big (size in byte) TX with low fee in between and is created in a way to obfuscate this I would not get my hopes up to get paid any time soon. Im not even sure if this is intentional, but however owns the address 1DqCqiSWw7u5VGH16DQy5MNDDC9G7dVwLf[2] has a lot of catching up to do confirmation wise.


[1] I am not 100% certain, but IIRC the one directly after the first without fee was also without a fee.
[2] https://blockchain.info/address/1DqCqiSWw7u5VGH16DQy5MNDDC9G7dVwLf

You have been extremely informative thus far.  Do you have any suggestions as to where to look for the information i need to prevent this in the future?  I thought waiting for 3 confirmations was the way to go for this but aparently thats not entirely true since this has happend and the user has been paid.

I paid for the script that i am using and would be willing to pay a secondary Well known & trusted scripter to look over the code and verify there are no loopholes / backdoors that could have caused this.    Im looking for this specifically i had a small conversation with the dev of my scripts that at the time seemed innocent but now that there was a dbl spend attack it raises suspicion

[shorena]

-snip-
You have been extremely informative thus far.

Thanks.

Do you have any suggestions as to where to look for the information i need to prevent this in the future?  I thought waiting for 3 confirmations was the way to go for this but aparently thats not entirely true since this has happend and the user has been paid.

Confirmations are the way to counter this, yes. This however is a very long chain of transactions all without confirmation.

I paid for the script that i am using and would be willing to pay a secondary Well known & trusted scripter to look over the code and verify there are no loopholes / backdoors that could have caused this.    Im looking for this specifically i had a small conversation with the dev of my scripts that at the time seemed innocent but now that there was a dbl spend attack it raises suspicion

I assume you control this[1] address or rather that however controls this address was attacked here, if this is an attack. This[2] transaction spends 5 inputs, 4 are confirmed one is not. Two hops along the chain of unconfirmed inputs and we are here[3]. The address[4] seems to belong to epay.info[5] some sort of API provider for micropayments. They allready have problems in this chain, but lets get back to your address[1] and this[2] transaction. What happened here is that a transaction was created that spend an unconfirmed input which should not have happened (3 confirmations > 0 conf.). It sends some coins to 1j25...[6] and the change back to 1GkoAX...[1] this repeats several times with different recipients. IMHO you should not have accepted this[7] as confirmed. It has a fee and everything looks fine, besides that one pesky input that is not confirmed, we allready know where this chain leads us.

[1] https://blockchain.info/address/1GkoAX4KoydkVxDdpXYyXpaKJwd8RFGZyA
[2] https://blockchain.info/tx/520e06c42aed049f112e1bbdcfe5136fecdf0319cab36c45b46b3ad5e9fcaa44?show_adv=true
[3] https://blockchain.info/tx/05230a2f992775f79130114a2e4c9ba921a289819ef603d9778a43811669f569
[4] https://blockchain.info/address/1DqCqiSWw7u5VGH16DQy5MNDDC9G7dVwLf
[5] http://epay.info/
[6] https://blockchain.info/address/1j254nct4kyPBCaNQmDZajXFLNco3D6h7
[7] https://blockchain.info/tx/3ef478121e82780ea66acfd79a2732563692320b05667c8ffa6657ed28fd4e51


PS:

Why exactly bitcoin core/qt is showing this as conflicted I beyond me. I cant follow all the inputs, but the usual reason is that the transaction from your screen shot (lets call it A) and another transaction (lets call it B) try to spend the same inputs and your client knows about this. The transaction that gets confirmed first will make the other invalid. If A get confirmed first you get to spend the BTC. If B gets confirmed first someone else gets to spend the BTC and all transactions you created "on top" of A are invalid. This could also happen for the whole chain.