Topic: All about "stuck" transactions and what you can do to fix them - page 4. (Read 117940 times)

Today i tryed viabtc for unstuck transaction and send payment to viabtc of 0.01btc, the first three mails to support is answered fast for say what i need to pay and in what wallet addres but after payment don't answer more mails and the tx after 8hours not's confirmed.

Edit: After 16hours tx is confirmed, not the fast i expected.

Great tutorial achow. One thing I want to add to it and that is, recently after updating the firmware of my Ledger Nano S to v1.3, I was able to use the Opt-In RBF (kind of) within its integrated wallet app. It has a nifty little button, which upon clicking, notifies me automatically about how much fee to increase in order to accelerate confirmation. And I guess it follows https://bitcoinfees.21.co since, most of the time it predicts the correct fee that needs to be increased before creating a new transaction. It is illustrated below: (sorry for censoring)

Step 1


Step 2


Hope this helps someone who is opting to buy a hardware wallet and not get stuck for hours in a transaction.

I'm having the same issue with a transaction going from my Havelock investments account to my mycelium wallet.  AFAIK, I cant control the miners fee on a withdrawal out of havelock and as such I've been waiting all day for my transaction to be confirmed.  It seems like a may be SOL because I cant imagine Havelock paying a substantial miners fee for withdrawals out of their site. If anybody has any ideas let me know.

got the same problem with two transactions at Electrum. One of them just got confirmed very quickly after I increased the fee another time (1: 0,0001 BTC -> 2: 0,0002 BTC -> 3: 0,0003 BTC)

"double spend" is what Blockchain.info calls it when you spend bitcoins after they "bounce back" to your wallet.

Unconfirmed for a long time is typically due to insufficient transaction fees, but also could be due to spending bitcoins that you received in a transaction that hasn't confirmed yet.  We'd need to see the transactionID to be certain.

My advice is to stop using blockchain.info completely.  Find a better wallet.

In the meantime you'll just have to wait.  You can try using a transaction accelerator ( https://www.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator ) on one of your two unconfirmed transactions while you wait, but I don't think they'll accept it since it is labeled as a "double spend".

Ok so I've got a really complicated issue here. I started a transaction which didn't get confirmed for a couple of days. Yesterday, I saw that it bounced back into my wallet, so I spent the money on something else. That transaction still didn't get confirmed. Then, this morning, I get locked out of my wallet (blockchain) cuz of negative balance. I looked up my address on blockchain.info and found that I was a few $ under because the transaction which had bounced back was automatically respent and still unconfirmed. I arranged the negative balance by putting what's missing in my wallet and was able to log in. However, now both my stuck transactions are unconfirmed and labelled "double spend". Is there anything other than wait around (which is what blockchain support suggested) that I can do to fix it?

Blockchain.info has a history of running a poorly written and poorly designed wallet. There is a reason that they were removed from bitcoin.org's Choose Your Wallet page; they failed to meet the standards required to make it onto that page. Blockchain.info also lacks any utilities for advanced users to do advanced things, and that includes fee setting. You should stop using them and switch to a desktop wallet.

No one can force a transaction to be dropped from the mempool. That is not what Core does. Rather all you can do is drop the transaction from your own mempool, but you can't drop it from someone else's.

They receive them as one output in the coinbase. It is combined with the block subsidy.

Your transaction has confirmed already.

How to see the size of a transaction in blockchain.info they're so stupid that even with their recommended fee my transaction is unconfirmed after 12 hours.
Is it possible that because of the so called higher fee which I selected in advance send option the size of my transaction increased? if so then why did it say that high fee is not needed and even suggested to lower the fee to 0.00021 in order to get confirmed after 10 minutes?
Are they stupid or just doing this on purpose?

Can I now that have no access to the desktop computer which has the core wallet on it import my address on electrum since I do have the private key and do the double spend? how else can I make the transaction to be dropped from mempool without core wallet? is there any online service providing that function?

ViaBTC said succeeded but they haven't found any blocks recently yet I'm sure that they will included it in the first block they find but I need to know to add the info to my brain

Also I have another question(s) and sorry to ask so much, when miners mine a block with thousands of small fees are they receiving them just like users are sending them? like receiving 0.0005/ 0.0004/ 0.001/ 0.000018/ 0.0007 etc? or are they all accumulated and combined as a single output?

If the small changes will for always remain the same way and can never be consolidated then what happens if someone breaks down hundreds of thousands or even millions of bitcoins into small outputs to make it harder and harder for people to spend since every output will have a lower value than the fee required to spend it?
If there is a way to consolidate these small amounts then why can't users do it themselves since it only sends all the small amounts to the same address and rounds them to one small sized output? why no one ever thought about to implementing such a thing?

---

This is the TX which has 111sat/b fee which I didn't know when sending and I'm going to stop using blockchain.info because they really suck.

I would think for it to be more along the lines of that traffic capacity was increased 11% but population growth and demographic shifts results in potential demand of >11% of prior capacity, therefore the roads continued to run at capacity.

If the max block size were increased to 1.11 MB today, then the blocks would probably still be full, and transactions would probably not get much cheaper. On the other hand, if the max block size were raised to say 8 MB today, then blocks would probably not be immidiately full, and the cost of including a tx in a block would be more in line with the cost of the miner including one additional transaction of it's size in a block plus some amount for profit. Over time, I would expect that demand for blockspace would increase to the point that blocks would become full again (because of things like increased adoption, and a higher number of economic transactions) , and the max block size would again need to be increased -- this would be okay because it is likely for technology to have improved by then.

I think that altcoins might be used more today because LN is not currently an option, however using altcoins will generally involve costs above a Bitcoin tx fee, such as exchange fees, and slippage when trading altcoins.

The only similarity to bitcoin I see here is: as long as its dirt cheap it will get used until it no longer is. In Bitcoin terms this would mean bigger blocks would not (permanently) reduce fees to previously unsaturated levels nor would it solve the "my TX is not getting through" issue, because bitcoin would just be used more until it reached this level again. Whether or not this research into roads can be transfered to bitcoin I dont know.


or alt coins (subway).

There are a couple of things that are noteworthy about that article.

1 - From the looks of it, the traffic patterns that the article examined were those that major roadways were operating at a maximum capacity, the capacity was increased, but not enough to satisfy existing demand, so the roadways continued to operate at a maximum capacity after additional travel lanes (ect.) were added.

2 - The article mentioned that reducing travel capacity did not result in horribly reduced travel conditions because citizens were forced to utilize alternate travel arrangements. This is not unlike the fact that maintaining the artificial 1 MB block size limit is essentially picking winners and losers in that LN and other similar arrangements are the winners.

3 - The article praised the former USSR (soviet union) in the fact that their communist structure benefited consumers. Over the medium and long term, communism (and the very similar socialism) kills those who are subjected to these kinds of governments/economies

You might want to reconsider this analogy unless you are suggesting reducing the blocksize.

-> https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/

Yeah. Only if Bitcoin City will build wider the roads or build new roads to ease traffic congestion. I think it's hard for them to implement such changes because there are too many cars and people in it already. Haha! If they won't increase capacity, people will be forced to move to the great city of Ethereum where they already built skyways and subways in strategic locations or the Lightning City where there are more roads with less cars. Hahaha! 😁

Or we could do what most cities that consistently have congestion problems do...increase traffic capacity in as simple and cost effective way possible.

My btc trans got cleared after 4 days. It's not found for the first 3 days, and now, suddenly, it's confirmed. I think we just need to be very patient as bitcoin is very slow right now and it WILL get slower a few weeks or months from now.

It's like a city full of cars. The more the cars within that city, the traffic will be heavier and people will arrive from one point to another point longer. This is what's happening to bitcoin right now. We all need to be very patient, because we'll arrive from origin to destination longer than usual. 😁

I have an Electrum wallet it has been in unconfirmed now for 2 days.
It's so slow i wonder what goes on there at Electrum.
Why do they always stick on Electrum ,it's worse than a frozen bank.

Mine got stuck for 2 days now. Still waiting. I should have selected the option with higher fee T_T

what do you mean by "same input" ? like I sent 1 BTC before, now I send 1 BTC is same ? or does it need to be correct to the fee spend ? but the fee need to be higher to be processed faster ?

When you sent again, it is possible that you did not spend the same inputs spent in the abandoned transaction. If the abandoned transaction has confirmed, then you would have made the payment twice.

I got stuck transaction for 12 hours, and it's been unconfirmed and is in memory pool. I tried the RBF option using core 0.14 and windows 10.
I already done the 'abandon transaction' step and resend with higher fee, now waiting for it to be completed.

However I realise the abandoned transaction is not come back to my balance, now I get deduct twice the amount I intended to send. is it a known issue ?

Like the previous transaction is 1 BTC, now I resend another 1 BTC, now my balance is deducted by 2 BTC ....
Do I need to wait ?