Bitcoin core, can’t send my BTC (not in memory pool)

HCP

legendary

Activity: 2086

Merit: 4361

Without knowing ALL the addresses, i can't know for certain if the whole 8.9 BTC was burned... But i can tell you that the balances of those 5 addresses that you listed definitely were.

I'm honestly not sure why these transactions are not showing in your wallet...
I would have thought that it would show the transactions... As the original 0.00001000 UTXOs were being spent.

However, it's possible that because the were used in a null transaction that Bitcoin Core isn't handling them properly.

Have you tried a "reindex" or "rescan"? Huh

Ocakypa

full member

Activity: 700

Merit: 100

Quote from: HCP on April 20, 2019, 05:15:54 PM

No... It would appear the addresses posted DID receive dust (a lot of 0.00001000 btc UTXOs back in 2015)...

1NwUfBG7kKNKjtoTbj8557Ty8MYiGXYupV
1NzGg6KKApR6M5SKSWGjfScsokVZK68yEc
1P2SjcwEJ1hrgWPjdFRfNiDvEpq6DJ8S8A
1P5JGtjq65L7mcW5B2ESHe8RCqQfW5KNE6
1P5QtTVmTYyPwqGU8BHJxQyndbgQ3gFzK1

However, they were all effectively "burned" in "null data" transactions that used the 0.00001000 btc as a transaction fee.

An example is decoded here: https://api.blockcypher.com/v1/btc/main/txs/99967491afcdddb7e1b695ec19f14cd4093d8eb4304de7f120209f392a5c9ab6?limit=50&includeHex=true

You can see the null data output:

Quote

"outputs": [
   {
   "value": 0,
   "script": "6a",
   "addresses": null,
   "script_type": "null-data"
   }
  ]

Outputs like this are able to be "ignored" by a node... That is to say, they don't get stored in the UTXO set.

Normally, you would use this for arbitrary "data storage"... But nothing is being stored here, the "script" is simply "6a" (aka OP_RETURN). So the dust is just being burned. Maybe to reduce the dust clutter in the UTXO set... Or maybe just piss off the wallet owner and destroy all their coins? Huh

I'd say that unless the "real" owner (or at least the person who created these null transactions) comes forward... We'll likely never know.

Does it mean that 8,9 BTC were burned during null transactions? And Bitcoin core doesn't show zero balance, because null transactions don't get stored in the UTXO set?

HCP

legendary

Activity: 2086

Merit: 4361

No... It would appear the addresses posted DID receive dust (a lot of 0.00001000 btc UTXOs back in 2015)...

1NwUfBG7kKNKjtoTbj8557Ty8MYiGXYupV
1NzGg6KKApR6M5SKSWGjfScsokVZK68yEc
1P2SjcwEJ1hrgWPjdFRfNiDvEpq6DJ8S8A
1P5JGtjq65L7mcW5B2ESHe8RCqQfW5KNE6
1P5QtTVmTYyPwqGU8BHJxQyndbgQ3gFzK1

However, they were all effectively "burned" in "null data" transactions that used the 0.00001000 btc as a transaction fee.

An example is decoded here: https://api.blockcypher.com/v1/btc/main/txs/99967491afcdddb7e1b695ec19f14cd4093d8eb4304de7f120209f392a5c9ab6?limit=50&includeHex=true

You can see the null data output:

Quote

"outputs": [
   {
   "value": 0,
   "script": "6a",
   "addresses": null,
   "script_type": "null-data"
   }
  ]

Outputs like this are able to be "ignored" by a node... That is to say, they don't get stored in the UTXO set.

Normally, you would use this for arbitrary "data storage"... But nothing is being stored here, the "script" is simply "6a" (aka OP_RETURN). So the dust is just being burned. Maybe to reduce the dust clutter in the UTXO set... Or maybe just piss off the wallet owner and destroy all their coins? Huh

I'd say that unless the "real" owner (or at least the person who created these null transactions) comes forward... We'll likely never know.

superbotolo

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 5

Quote from: ?? on ??

Most likely your wallet is corrupted, your Bitcoin Core experience error (you can check debug.log) or wallet that you found is manipulated (most likely scenario). Quote from achow101 about fake/manipulated wallet

I am not an expert and I am trying to understand. This would mean that this user has 0 BTC? If so, where did he see that dust he was mentioning in the first message?

Ocakypa

full member

Activity: 700

Merit: 100

Quote from: nc50lc on April 20, 2019, 09:17:14 AM

Quote from: Ocakypa on April 20, 2019, 07:55:11 AM

-snip-
Here example of addresses:
1NwUfBG7kKNKjtoTbj8557Ty8MYiGXYupV
1NzGg6KKApR6M5SKSWGjfScsokVZK68yEc
1P2SjcwEJ1hrgWPjdFRfNiDvEpq6DJ8S8A
1P5JGtjq65L7mcW5B2ESHe8RCqQfW5KNE6
1P5QtTVmTYyPwqGU8BHJxQyndbgQ3gFzK1

They all starts from 1, am I right that it’s btc?

Addresses are just derived from the private keys that were stored in the wallet.dat and if you load it to Bitcoin Core, those will be derived as bitcoin addresses no matter the compatible source wallet is.
However, there are transactions in the history shown in bitcoin blockexplorers.
Though most of them are "null" and can't be OP_Return, there is indeed a "history".

Good, there's high a chance that it's a Bitcoin Core wallet.dat Wink

So, how is it possible that bitcoin core shows me 8,9 BTC balance and blockexplorer shows 0?

nc50lc

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 6080

Self-proclaimed Genius

Quote from: Ocakypa on April 20, 2019, 07:55:11 AM

-snip-
Here example of addresses:
1NwUfBG7kKNKjtoTbj8557Ty8MYiGXYupV
1NzGg6KKApR6M5SKSWGjfScsokVZK68yEc
1P2SjcwEJ1hrgWPjdFRfNiDvEpq6DJ8S8A
1P5JGtjq65L7mcW5B2ESHe8RCqQfW5KNE6
1P5QtTVmTYyPwqGU8BHJxQyndbgQ3gFzK1

They all starts from 1, am I right that it’s btc?

Addresses are just derived from the private keys that were stored in the wallet.dat and if you load it to Bitcoin Core, those will be derived as bitcoin addresses no matter the compatible source wallet is.
However, there are transactions in the history shown in bitcoin blockexplorers.
Though most of them are "null" and can't be OP_Return, there is indeed a "history".

Good, there's high a chance that it's a Bitcoin Core wallet.dat Wink

Ocakypa

full member

Activity: 700

Merit: 100

Quote from: AdolfinWolf on April 20, 2019, 08:13:08 AM

Quote from: Ocakypa on April 20, 2019, 07:55:11 AM

Quote from: HCP on April 20, 2019, 04:38:35 AM

If the addresses you have in your wallet show balance and transactions, but those same address have zero transaction history on a Bitcoin block explorer, then that pretty much confirms that nc50lc was correct and you have most probably loaded an altcoin wallet into Bitcoin Core.

You can dump the wallet using PyWallet to see what the addresses are... The address prefix (first characters) should hopefully give you a clue as to the coin type...

Refer:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/19589/how-to-determine-what-type-of-coins-a-wallet-dat-contains

You can also use the "strings" method... Open the .dat in a text editor and look for "names" field. Refer:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/57122/have-a-bunch-of-wallet-dat-files-what-alt-coins-do-they-have-and-may-be-how-mu

Here example of addresses:
1NwUfBG7kKNKjtoTbj8557Ty8MYiGXYupV
1NzGg6KKApR6M5SKSWGjfScsokVZK68yEc
1P2SjcwEJ1hrgWPjdFRfNiDvEpq6DJ8S8A
1P5JGtjq65L7mcW5B2ESHe8RCqQfW5KNE6
1P5QtTVmTYyPwqGU8BHJxQyndbgQ3gFzK1

They all starts from 1, am I right that it’s btc?

Yes, those are bitcoin adresses, and you can put them in any blockchain explorer..?

None of them hold any balance though? I'm guessing that your bitcoin core wallet might still be syncing, and has currently only caught up until the moment in time when these adresses DID have any balance..?

Yes, any blockchain explorer.
I downloaded full blockchain twice and it’s always synchronized.

AdolfinWolf

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1427

Quote from: Ocakypa on April 20, 2019, 07:55:11 AM

Quote from: HCP on April 20, 2019, 04:38:35 AM

If the addresses you have in your wallet show balance and transactions, but those same address have zero transaction history on a Bitcoin block explorer, then that pretty much confirms that nc50lc was correct and you have most probably loaded an altcoin wallet into Bitcoin Core.

You can dump the wallet using PyWallet to see what the addresses are... The address prefix (first characters) should hopefully give you a clue as to the coin type...

Refer:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/19589/how-to-determine-what-type-of-coins-a-wallet-dat-contains

You can also use the "strings" method... Open the .dat in a text editor and look for "names" field. Refer:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/57122/have-a-bunch-of-wallet-dat-files-what-alt-coins-do-they-have-and-may-be-how-mu

Here example of addresses:
1NwUfBG7kKNKjtoTbj8557Ty8MYiGXYupV
1NzGg6KKApR6M5SKSWGjfScsokVZK68yEc
1P2SjcwEJ1hrgWPjdFRfNiDvEpq6DJ8S8A
1P5JGtjq65L7mcW5B2ESHe8RCqQfW5KNE6
1P5QtTVmTYyPwqGU8BHJxQyndbgQ3gFzK1

They all starts from 1, am I right that it’s btc?

Yes, those are bitcoin adresses, and you can put them in any blockchain explorer..?

None of them hold any balance though? I'm guessing that your bitcoin core wallet might still be syncing, and has currently only caught up until the moment in time when these adresses DID have any balance..?

Ocakypa

full member

Activity: 700

Merit: 100

Quote from: HCP on April 20, 2019, 04:38:35 AM

If the addresses you have in your wallet show balance and transactions, but those same address have zero transaction history on a Bitcoin block explorer, then that pretty much confirms that nc50lc was correct and you have most probably loaded an altcoin wallet into Bitcoin Core.

You can dump the wallet using PyWallet to see what the addresses are... The address prefix (first characters) should hopefully give you a clue as to the coin type...

Refer:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/19589/how-to-determine-what-type-of-coins-a-wallet-dat-contains

You can also use the "strings" method... Open the .dat in a text editor and look for "names" field. Refer:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/57122/have-a-bunch-of-wallet-dat-files-what-alt-coins-do-they-have-and-may-be-how-mu

Here example of addresses:
1NwUfBG7kKNKjtoTbj8557Ty8MYiGXYupV
1NzGg6KKApR6M5SKSWGjfScsokVZK68yEc
1P2SjcwEJ1hrgWPjdFRfNiDvEpq6DJ8S8A
1P5JGtjq65L7mcW5B2ESHe8RCqQfW5KNE6
1P5QtTVmTYyPwqGU8BHJxQyndbgQ3gFzK1

They all starts from 1, am I right that it’s btc?

kano

legendary

Activity: 4592

Merit: 1851

Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

Hmm ... sounds like someone involved in spamming the network in the past ...

I guess that's why you wont say what the address(es) is/are?

HCP

legendary

Activity: 2086

Merit: 4361

If the addresses you have in your wallet show balance and transactions, but those same address have zero transaction history on a Bitcoin block explorer, then that pretty much confirms that nc50lc was correct and you have most probably loaded an altcoin wallet into Bitcoin Core.

You can dump the wallet using PyWallet to see what the addresses are... The address prefix (first characters) should hopefully give you a clue as to the coin type...

Refer:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/19589/how-to-determine-what-type-of-coins-a-wallet-dat-contains

You can also use the "strings" method... Open the .dat in a text editor and look for "names" field. Refer:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/57122/have-a-bunch-of-wallet-dat-files-what-alt-coins-do-they-have-and-may-be-how-mu

Ocakypa

full member

Activity: 700

Merit: 100

Quote from: nc50lc on April 19, 2019, 09:08:47 PM

Quote from: nc50lc on April 17, 2019, 08:34:38 PM

Are you sure that it's a BitcoinCore or QT wallet.dat? It seems like your node instantly rejects the tx because it's invalid.
There were reports from users who've loaded altcoin wallet.dat to core and successfully viewed the alleged balance but failed to create a valid transaction and resulted with the same error.

Can you post any transaction ID (and its info like sent amount and addresses involved) from the History so that we can verify that it is in the network?

Quoting myself here since OP somehow ignored the fact that it may be an Altcoin wallet.dat that's compatible with Bitcoin core like Litecoin and DogeCoin.

One transaction in the history is enough to tell that it's an altcoin wallet.dat or not (Forks may be harder to tell though).

Hi man, how can I check it?
Because very strange situation, bitcoin core shows balance, but when I check same addresses on the blockchain it shows zero balance.

nc50lc

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 6080

Self-proclaimed Genius

Quote from: nc50lc on April 17, 2019, 08:34:38 PM

Are you sure that it's a BitcoinCore or QT wallet.dat? It seems like your node instantly rejects the tx because it's invalid.
There were reports from users who've loaded altcoin wallet.dat to core and successfully viewed the alleged balance but failed to create a valid transaction and resulted with the same error.

Can you post any transaction ID (and its info like sent amount and addresses involved) from the History so that we can verify that it is in the network?

Quoting myself here since OP somehow ignored the fact that it may be an Altcoin wallet.dat that's compatible with Bitcoin core like Litecoin and DogeCoin.

One transaction in the history is enough to tell that it's an altcoin wallet.dat or not (Forks may be harder to tell though).

HCP

legendary

Activity: 2086

Merit: 4361

Quote from: Ocakypa on April 19, 2019, 05:33:53 AM

Yes, I tried to use coin control and it writes me that transaction too big (there were 15k bytes).

Correct. There is no way you will be able to consolidate all 90,000 inputs in one transaction. You will need to do it in batches.

Quote

If I make a smaller transaction in writes "not in memory pool" in history.

If it is showing as "not in mempool", this is due to your transaction being refused by upstream nodes as invalid. This could be caused by missing inputs, missing signatures, invalid outputs etc... but generally, you should get a popup with an error code+message when sending "fails".

Do you get any sort of error message when attempting to send the smaller transactions? Huh

Or does it simply create and entry in "history"?

Is your Bitcoin Core fully synced?

Quote

Maybe it makes sense, I put recipient address, which from my Ledger, not generated inside Bitcoin Core.

That shouldn't make any difference... Bitcoin Core is able to send to addresses generated on a Ledger device.

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: Ocakypa on April 19, 2019, 05:33:53 AM

Yes, I tried to use coin control and it writes me that transaction too big (there were 15k bytes). If I make a smaller transaction in writes "not in memory pool" in history. Maybe it makes sense, I put recipient address, which from my Ledger, not generated inside Bitcoin Core.

Sorry, I don't know what causes this. It doesn't sound like normal behaviour, so maybe your wallet needs a rescan or something.

Ocakypa

full member

Activity: 700

Merit: 100

Quote from: AdolfinWolf on April 19, 2019, 04:39:18 AM

Quote from: Ocakypa on April 19, 2019, 04:30:30 AM

Hi man, I dumped private keys (there are 700+ not to include reserved addresses). So, regarding your question, - I've got transactions on multiple addresses.
I imported my keys to Electrum, but it's synchronizing already 24 hours. Is it ok?

No, that doesn't sound OK. Electrum is an SPV wallet, which means there is not really any synchronizing[1] needed, atleast not one that takes 24H.

Either you have a really crappy internet connection, or there's something wrong with either

I. your PC/Network settings/firewall,

II. your wallet. (Outdated, corrupt, (fake version?(unlikely)).
III. The server you're connecting to on Electrum itself. Please try switching that up as well.

Please verify that you're using the latest version of electrum, and that you're using the right version. (Checksum matching, verify the signature.)

Internet connection perfect.

What to check regarding I?
II. If it's corrupted, why Bitcoin Core didn't send errors?

Ocakypa

full member

Activity: 700

Merit: 100

Quote from: djhomeschool on April 19, 2019, 04:38:24 AM

Quote from: Ocakypa on April 19, 2019, 04:30:30 AM

Quote from: BitMaxz on April 17, 2019, 01:38:47 PM

Quote from: Ocakypa on April 17, 2019, 09:58:42 AM

Okay, I will post raw data a bit later.
Right, I'm trying to consolidate a lot of small input, but then bitcoin core writes error "transaction too large". After that, I tried to send a small amount like 0.01 BTC with priority fee and it still writes not in memory pool.
So, is there any opportunity to send bigger amount and solve a problem with "not in memory pool".

Regarding the case, i see that it looks like the same situation as mine, but don't fully understand steps to solve it. Maybe you can expain?

Let me ask if your all 90k transaction is received only in a single bitcoin address or it is in multiple addresses?

The only thing that comes to my mind If all inputs are only in a single bitcoin address dump the private key and import it to other wallets like electrum(Orig URL is electrum.org if you are planning use it) and simply make a new transaction and send it to the same address and pay 3 to 10 sat per byte(for low fee) to consolidate/merge all transactions into a single input. I don't know how fast the transaction to confirm but I have experienced consolidating all transaction into one in electrum with 1 sat/byte and it takes minutes to confirmed.

Now, you can send it to exchanges after confirmed with a lesser fee.

Hi man, I dumped private keys (there are 700+ not to include reserved addresses). So, regarding your question, - I've got transactions on multiple addresses.
I imported my keys to Electrum, but it's synchronizing already 24 hours. Is it ok?

It should not take that long, i have Electrum wallets with over 2k addresses and it synchronizes in a few seconds.
What version of Electrum are you using? The latest one downloaded from https://electrum.org/#download ?

Yes, the latest one

Ocakypa

full member

Activity: 700

Merit: 100

Quote from: LoyceV on April 17, 2019, 01:51:14 PM

Quote from: Ocakypa on April 17, 2019, 05:47:05 AM

1. It’s consist of 0.0001 BTC x 90000 transactions = ~9 BTC. Bitcoin’s dust in fact.

Would you mind sharing your Bitcoin address here? I'm curious Cheesy

Quote from: Ocakypa on April 17, 2019, 09:58:42 AM

Right, I'm trying to consolidate a lot of small input, but then bitcoin core writes error "transaction too large". After that, I tried to send a small amount like 0.01 BTC with priority fee and it still writes not in memory pool.

Coin control should help

If you're holding 9 Bitcoin from 2015, you also hold many different Forkcoins. LoyceV's Bitcoin Fork claiming guide (and service) is largely outdated, but still a good place to start reading.

Yes, I read your thread

I'm using the last one - 0.17.1
Yes, I tried to use coin control and it writes me that transaction too big (there were 15k bytes). If I make a smaller transaction in writes "not in memory pool" in history. Maybe it makes sense, I put recipient address, which from my Ledger, not generated inside Bitcoin Core.
Yes, I made several backups.

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: Ocakypa on April 19, 2019, 04:30:30 AM

Hi man, I dumped private keys (there are 700+ not to include reserved addresses). So, regarding your question, - I've got transactions on multiple addresses.
I imported my keys to Electrum, but it's synchronizing already 24 hours. Is it ok?

There's no reason to abandon Bitcoin Core and use Electrum for this. It's no surprise for Electrum to take a long time synchronizing 90,000 (or more) transactions, if you really want to use Electrum, don't import all private keys at once.

If you answer my previous questions I can continue with more suggestions

AdolfinWolf

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1427

Quote from: Ocakypa on April 19, 2019, 04:30:30 AM

Hi man, I dumped private keys (there are 700+ not to include reserved addresses). So, regarding your question, - I've got transactions on multiple addresses.
I imported my keys to Electrum, but it's synchronizing already 24 hours. Is it ok?

No, that doesn't sound OK. Electrum is an SPV wallet, which means there is not really any synchronizing[1] needed, atleast not one that takes 24H.

Either you have a really crappy internet connection, or there's something wrong with either

I. your PC/Network settings/firewall,

II. your wallet. (Outdated, corrupt, (fake version?(unlikely)).
III. The server you're connecting to on Electrum itself. Please try switching that up as well.

Please verify that you're using the latest version of electrum, and that you're using the right version. (Checksum matching, verify the signature.)

Didn't read the fact that you have over 90k transactions... Roll Eyes

My bad. That could be a big factor in why it won't sync, but it's still something i've never heard happening before...

Topic: Bitcoin core, can’t send my BTC (not in memory pool) (Read 436 times)