Can you not use the raw transaction in the first post?
It will get rejected due to another reason: "too high fees". That includes blockcypher.He needs the one with the normal fee.
Topic: [~1 BTC Bounty] - page 4. (Read 4723 times)
He needs the one with the normal fee.
How is it sneaking into any mempools at all?
most probably the nodes accepting this transaction are running software other than bitcoin core as their full node and it doesn't reject (at least) this particular non-standard transaction type. 
Yes,
Since 150+ nodes are still accepting it, there's a 'very very slim' chance that it will get into a mining nodes's mempool (that also accepts such transactions).
But re-broadcasting it after getting dropped isn't worth it, IMO.
Since 150+ nodes are still accepting it, there's a 'very very slim' chance that it will get into a mining nodes's mempool (that also accepts such transactions).
But re-broadcasting it after getting dropped isn't worth it, IMO.
There needs to be at least one miner who is willing to mine other peoples' non-standard transactions in the first place. I'd keep posting about this all over the Internet in the hope that it goes viral at some point and someone gives him a hand.
How is it sneaking into any mempools at all?
There needs to be at least one miner who is willing to mine other peoples' non-standard transactions in the first place. I'd keep posting about this all over the Internet in the hope that it goes viral at some point and someone gives him a hand.
Until that occurs, may I have the RAW transaction so that I can try broadcasting it in various places please?
Can you not use the raw transaction in the first post?
There needs to be at least one miner who is willing to mine other peoples' non-standard transactions in the first place. I'd keep posting about this all over the Internet in the hope that it goes viral at some point and someone gives him a hand.
Until that occurs, may I have the RAW transaction so that I can try broadcasting it in various places please?
Yes,
Since 150+ nodes are still accepting it, there's a 'very very slim' chance that it will get into a mining nodes's mempool (that also accepts such transactions).
But re-broadcasting it after getting dropped isn't worth it, IMO.
Since 150+ nodes are still accepting it, there's a 'very very slim' chance that it will get into a mining nodes's mempool (that also accepts such transactions).
But re-broadcasting it after getting dropped isn't worth it, IMO.
There needs to be at least one miner who is willing to mine other peoples' non-standard transactions in the first place. I'd keep posting about this all over the Internet in the hope that it goes viral at some point and someone gives him a hand.
How can there be a slim chance? Should I keep re-broadcasting in hopes that a small miner would accept it?
If you post the RAW transaction I'll rebroadcast it where I can and I'm sure I'm not the only one who would given there are already ?? 150+ nodes still holding it in their mempool.
How can there be a slim chance? Should I keep re-broadcasting in hopes that a small miner would accept it?
Yes,Since 150+ nodes are still accepting it, there's a 'very very slim' chance that it will get into a mining nodes' mempool (that also accepts such transactions).
But re-broadcasting it after getting dropped isn't worth it, IMO.
Can you click the "!" in the "confidence" to check how many nodes (that they see in average) have accepted your transaction?
It says 156 memory pools have the tx.My mainnet test "uncompressed SegWit" transaction has the same behavior (140-170 mempools) and
I have been re-broadcast~ing it through blockcypher with no avail of being mined (as I expected).
Still, there's a very very slim chance.
Good luck!
How can there be a slim chance? Should I keep re-broadcasting in hopes that a small miner would accept it?
Is there exist another private with the compressed public key leads to the same segwit address?
Theoretically, there might be.Because there are more private keys than the total number of '3' addresses.
Here's a similar discussion, but about P2PKH: how many possible private keys can be generated for a public key
Since we're talking about P2SH here, there's also a chance that a different script might produce that address.
But take note that the numbers are too high for a collision to be possible.
Just curios, this segwit address (with stuck 5.8BTC) was created based on uncompressed public key:
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/34dqaqvQNWMgbMJmmxVa8LeGz7St6ATT97
Is there exist another private with the compressed public key leads to the same segwit address?
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/34dqaqvQNWMgbMJmmxVa8LeGz7St6ATT97
Is there exist another private with the compressed public key leads to the same segwit address?
Can you click the "!" in the "confidence" to check how many nodes (that they see in average) have accepted your transaction?
It says 156 memory pools have the tx.My mainnet test "uncompressed SegWit" transaction has the same behavior (140-170 mempools) and
I have been re-broadcast~ing it through blockcypher with no avail of being mined (as I expected).
Still, there's a very very slim chance.
Good luck!
@nc50lc @Timelord2067
Out of curiosity, I created a transaction with a much lower fee (50k sats/b). Obviously its not being mined, but it seems like Blockcypher is putting its mining priority as high? I find it interesting that the numbers can be so drastically different when the fee is this much lower.
Out of curiosity, I created a transaction with a much lower fee (50k sats/b). Obviously its not being mined, but it seems like Blockcypher is putting its mining priority as high? I find it interesting that the numbers can be so drastically different when the fee is this much lower.
I hope it works for you, I have a list of websites that [Guide] Broadcast Your RAW Transaction BTC & Alts coins - there aren't as many as a year ago, but if you can get the RAW transaction, then you should be able to broadcast it again. (if you post the new RAW TX perhaps some people here can sendrawtransaction via their own wallets?)
Hope it works out for you.
I think the "Miner Preference" is solely based from the fee/vbyte of your transaction, since it has a higher fee than the current highest fee, it's displayed as "high".
But it will still depend if a miner will pick-up your transaction.
The "Confidence" however, is based from their algorithm for the confidence factor: https://www.blockcypher.com/dev/bitcoin/#confidence-factor
That includes the fee rate, number of mempools that has the txn and other factors.
Can you click the "!" in the "confidence" to check how many nodes (that they see in average) have accepted your transaction?
But it will still depend if a miner will pick-up your transaction.
The "Confidence" however, is based from their algorithm for the confidence factor: https://www.blockcypher.com/dev/bitcoin/#confidence-factor
That includes the fee rate, number of mempools that has the txn and other factors.
Can you click the "!" in the "confidence" to check how many nodes (that they see in average) have accepted your transaction?
It says 156 memory pools have the tx.
I think the "Miner Preference" is solely based from the fee/vbyte of your transaction, since it has a higher fee than the current highest fee, it's displayed as "high".
But it will still depend if a miner will pick-up your transaction.
The "Confidence" however, is based from their algorithm for the confidence factor: https://www.blockcypher.com/dev/bitcoin/#confidence-factor
That includes the fee rate, number of mempools that has the txn and other factors.
Can you click the "!" in the "confidence" to check how many nodes (that they see in average) have accepted your transaction?
But it will still depend if a miner will pick-up your transaction.
The "Confidence" however, is based from their algorithm for the confidence factor: https://www.blockcypher.com/dev/bitcoin/#confidence-factor
That includes the fee rate, number of mempools that has the txn and other factors.
Can you click the "!" in the "confidence" to check how many nodes (that they see in average) have accepted your transaction?
@nc50lc @Timelord2067
Out of curiosity, I created a transaction with a much lower fee (50k sats/b). Obviously its not being mined, but it seems like Blockcypher is putting its mining priority as high? I find it interesting that the numbers can be so drastically different when the fee is this much lower.
Out of curiosity, I created a transaction with a much lower fee (50k sats/b). Obviously its not being mined, but it seems like Blockcypher is putting its mining priority as high? I find it interesting that the numbers can be so drastically different when the fee is this much lower.
Yep, I get that - I'm talking about re-creating the wallet as it was (hopefully) before that TX occurred and (for want of a better description) creating a double spend via a TX that the nodes WILL process.
Hmm, I don't know what you're suggesting but AFAIK, there's no convenient way to reverse a transaction that was already included in the blockchain.He's trying to spend a UTXO from the blockchain that can only be spent with a non-standard transaction.
The funds aren't locked in any node's mempool nor his wallet;
The problem is: he can't propagate the 'Signed RAW Transaction' over the network because almost all nodes are rejecting it, thus it can't reach any mining nodes.
Most pools/solo miners' nodes are also configured not to accept such transactions so he's looking for a miner who'll accept the txn - that's what the bounty is for.
The problem is: he can't propagate the 'Signed RAW Transaction' over the network because almost all nodes are rejecting it, thus it can't reach any mining nodes.
Most pools/solo miners' nodes are also configured not to accept such transactions so he's looking for a miner who'll accept the txn - that's what the bounty is for.
Yep, I get that - I'm talking about re-creating the wallet as it was (hopefully) before that TX occurred and (for want of a better description) creating a double spend via a TX that the nodes WILL process.
Worth a shot.
It will also be rejected by blockexplorers with an error (except from blockcypher but it wont propagate):
Is there a reason why Blockcypher was able to broadcast it in the first place? Normally the broadcast code rejects it on most other websites but Blockcypher seemed to let it through.I've noticed it a few month ago after I accidentally added a non-standard script and it was accepted by blockcypher's push service (it didn't propagate as well).
Alternatively, my Github request could be implemented but that is near impossible as I am seemingly the only one with this issue who has a significant amount in limbo. Recreating the wallet doesn't help any of that
My reasoning in suggesting it was perhaps the unconfirmed transaction *might* not get restored and hence the funds are freed-up enabling you to create a new transaction that hopefully works given the previous one seems to have slipped out of the mem-pool.The problem is: he can't propagate the 'Signed RAW Transaction' over the network because almost all nodes are rejecting it, thus it can't reach any mining nodes.
Most pools/solo miners' nodes are also configured not to accept such transactions so he's looking for a miner who'll accept the txn - that's what the bounty is for.
Alternatively, my Github request could be implemented but that is near impossible as I am seemingly the only one with this issue who has a significant amount in limbo. Recreating the wallet doesn't help any of that
My reasoning in suggesting it was perhaps the unconfirmed transaction *might* not get restored and hence the funds are freed-up enabling you to create a new transaction that hopefully works given the previous one seems to have slipped out of the mem-pool.
Jump to: