Bitcoin is not the answer for microtransactions; how to rebroadcast unconfirmed?

Mobius

hero member

Activity: 988

Merit: 1000

Quote from: sandykho47 on August 09, 2014, 12:38:10 AM

Yeah, i think 10k satoshi ($0.06) is too big for small payment
Last time i try to send some BTC with 0.00001 fee. take 4 hours just for 1 confirmation Sad

You can rebroadcast unconfirmed with higher fee
anyway, i think minimum fee for nom is 0.00005 BTC

if you very small fee payment, use dogecoin
the fee is about 1 - 2 dogecoin (35 - 70 satoshi) only Grin

If you send with less then the recommend TX fee then you are more or less sending without a fee at all. A smaller fee may speed up confirmation somewhat but it will still take a long time if it confirms at all.

MineForeman.com

legendary

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Quote from: hamiltino on August 09, 2014, 12:19:40 AM

Quote from: MineForeman.com on August 08, 2014, 11:56:56 PM

Quote from: hamiltino on August 08, 2014, 10:26:03 PM

Quote from: cbeast on August 04, 2014, 07:43:36 AM

Cryptocurrencies will either be widely accepted or useful for microtransactions. They can't be both.

idiotic statement... safecoin will have no transaction fees.

Really? What stops some malicious person filling up safecoins blockchain with terabytes of junk by transferring inputs around the place?

That is the main problem that fee's solve with bitcoin at the moment, it is not really about paying the miners yet.

Neil

safecoin does not use a blockchain and yes it is decentralized. Check out the systemDocs: http://maidsafe.net/SystemDocs/

Nice marketspeak (Still don't know how safecoin gets around the problem).

Neil

gtraah

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

At the moment Micro-transactions are not that bad really

Fee = 0.00005 BTC is ---- 3 cents

If you want to tip someone 5 Cents it means you need to send 8 Cents to include the fee, that really isnt that bad, I think you can manage even less fees.

And on top of this, when the fee things gets sorted , fees should change to depending how much or how little your sending. I was watching the last video of the core devs speaking . I think it was in Amsterdam, they brought the fee thing up and said it will be coming in the next version or seomthing.

gtraah

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Ayers on August 09, 2014, 08:11:40 AM

Quote from: Meuh6879 on August 03, 2014, 11:22:44 AM

Example : With android bitcoin wallet, i can only send the minimal 0,06 mBTC (0,02 Euros).
Fees = 0,10 mBTC ...

What is a "micro-payment" ?

this problem is here only because bitcoin isn't at fully potential, i mean price of btc is still in his infancy, with a better price problem like this will not occur anymore

+1 devs are working on this also . Its being talked about

gtraah

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Pente on August 03, 2014, 11:17:11 AM

Dogecoin is more suited for microtransactions. And the OP problem is why competition amongst cryptocurrencies is good.

LOL , It may be ok because its worth next to nothing. But mainstream are still struggling to adopt BTC and now we talking dogecoin, a coin with a picture of a dog on it? Man i never understood that stupid image, Dogs & Money is just ridiculous mix.

If micro-payments is what the market really REALLY wants and needs, the clients will be modified to make it plausible... Gavin mentioned something about adjustable fees at the last meeting which will be coming out in one of the next versions, not sure exactly is this will sort it a little. But anyway at this point of time its not needed, if even 25% of users and larger companies start opting for throwing money to invest into the startups And start creating applications around this tipping market.. THIS is when clients or core will be modified slightly to enable this type of thing

Ayers

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 1022

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Meuh6879 on August 03, 2014, 11:22:44 AM

Example : With android bitcoin wallet, i can only send the minimal 0,06 mBTC (0,02 Euros).
Fees = 0,10 mBTC ...

What is a "micro-payment" ?

this problem is here only because bitcoin isn't at fully potential, i mean price of btc is still in his infancy, with a better price problem like this will not occur anymore

sandykho47

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Knowledge its everything

Yeah, i think 10k satoshi ($0.06) is too big for small payment
Last time i try to send some BTC with 0.00001 fee. take 4 hours just for 1 confirmation Sad

You can rebroadcast unconfirmed with higher fee
anyway, i think minimum fee for nom is 0.00005 BTC

if you very small fee payment, use dogecoin
the fee is about 1 - 2 dogecoin (35 - 70 satoshi) only Grin

hamiltino

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

P2P The Planet!

Quote from: MineForeman.com on August 08, 2014, 11:56:56 PM

Quote from: hamiltino on August 08, 2014, 10:26:03 PM

Quote from: cbeast on August 04, 2014, 07:43:36 AM

Cryptocurrencies will either be widely accepted or useful for microtransactions. They can't be both.

idiotic statement... safecoin will have no transaction fees.

Really? What stops some malicious person filling up safecoins blockchain with terabytes of junk by transferring inputs around the place?

That is the main problem that fee's solve with bitcoin at the moment, it is not really about paying the miners yet.

Neil

safecoin does not use a blockchain and yes it is decentralized. Check out the systemDocs: http://maidsafe.net/SystemDocs/

sed

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on August 03, 2014, 11:12:38 AM

As a heads up future versions of the mainline client will reduce the min fee to relay from ~~100 bits (~~.0001 BTC) to ~~1 bits (~~.00001 BTC). Still small txns will never be free. Low cost yes, but free no. The fees act as a denial of service prevention mechanism.

FTFY. "bits"?!

MineForeman.com

legendary

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Quote from: hamiltino on August 08, 2014, 10:26:03 PM

Quote from: cbeast on August 04, 2014, 07:43:36 AM

Cryptocurrencies will either be widely accepted or useful for microtransactions. They can't be both.

idiotic statement... safecoin will have no transaction fees.

Really? What stops some malicious person filling up safecoins blockchain with terabytes of junk by transferring inputs around the place?

That is the main problem that fee's solve with bitcoin at the moment, it is not really about paying the miners yet.

Neil

hamiltino

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

P2P The Planet!

Quote from: cbeast on August 04, 2014, 07:43:36 AM

Cryptocurrencies will either be widely accepted or useful for microtransactions. They can't be both.

idiotic statement... safecoin will have no transaction fees.

bigasic

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: BitcoinGirl325 on August 03, 2014, 09:30:17 AM

I was under the impression that Bitcoin would be the answer for sending micro payments over the Internet, but that is apparently not the case at all.

With a .0001 BTC required transaction fee for all transactions under .01 BTC, that amounts to a 6% transaction fee (at today's exchange rates) for a $1 USD transaction. And that equates to a 12% fee for a $.50 USD transaction. These fees are significantly higher than credit card fees, Paypal fees, Western Union fees, and even foreign exchange rate fees.

A few days ago, I didn't realize any of this information (i.e. the required fees), so I tried to send $1 worth of BTC to a friend WITHOUT a transaction fee to show him how "amazing" this new technology is. Turns out to be not very amazing at all, because the transaction never confirmed because of the lack of the transaction fee. Worst of all, there seems to be nothing I can do about it... I can't even add the 6% fee to it now, in order to get it confirmed! Sad

I used the BitWallet app on iOS to send the transaction, and the hash of the transaction is: c238d939b330b682abe1c729300636600254c23c67e1eea4e8daa9abc26dd2c5

So now the transaction is in a permanent limbo state that can't be resolved, and I have effectively paid a 100% transaction fee because the money is in limbo. Sad

Is there anything I can do to rebroadcast this transaction with the appropriate fee, so it actually confirms?

Well, not really, have you gone into a convenience store lately? Most of them say "5 dollar minimum to use a credit card or debit card" because when they take credit cards they are charge a 30 cent or so fee just to do the transaction, then the 3-7 or so percent. then when the batch is uploaded for the day they are charged a batch fee, which is usually 20-50 cents for the entire day. so, 12 cents to take btc for a tiny amount still beats taking credit cards, though I would like it changed..

wasserman99

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: BitcoinGirl325 on August 06, 2014, 05:31:29 PM

The transaction finally "fell off" of Blockchain.info, which was the node that was holding onto it and keeping it "stuck". It took 4 days, but I got my coins back!

I then sent them again with the appropriate fee and everything is now good.

Most nodes usually will "forget" a TX after 24 hours if not confirmed. If your wallet is connected to a node that has "forgotten" a unconfirmed TX then you can rebroadcast the TX with a higher fee.

BitcoinGirl325

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: Krona Rev on August 08, 2014, 01:29:41 PM

I was using the ordinary Bitcoin-QT client (0.9.2.1). I used the debug console to create the transaction using the commands:

createrawtransaction ...
signrawtransaction ...
sendrawtransaction ...

I don't think Bitcoin-QT gives a way to choose which coins to spend using ordinary (GUI) methods.

Ahhh… I see. Thanks so much for the clarification! Okay, so if this were to happen to me in the future, I would need to figure out those 3 commands and use the debug console.

Krona Rev

full member

Activity: 129

Merit: 100

I was using the ordinary Bitcoin-QT client (0.9.2.1). I used the debug console to create the transaction using the commands:

createrawtransaction ...
signrawtransaction ...
sendrawtransaction ...

I don't think Bitcoin-QT gives a way to choose which coins to spend using ordinary (GUI) methods.

BitcoinGirl325

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: Krona Rev on August 07, 2014, 02:07:42 PM

I'm glad your problem seems to be resolved. I've had a similar problem since April 23 -- i.e., over 3 months. I managed to resolve it. I'll share it in case it helps someone in the future.

On April 23 I sent a small transaction from myself to myself. I didn't include a fee. Maybe I was cheap or maybe I forgot. I don't remember. I know the confirmation wasn't urgent. Well, it had been sitting in my wallet "unconfirmed" since then -- for over 3 months. At some point I tried the things described in this thread: rebroadcast with a fee, but it wouldn't get pushed onto the network because it looked like it never would. I waited for the transaction to "fall off" the network so I could resend it, but when I checked every few weeks it was still on blockchain.info as "unconfirmed."

Yesterday I had an idea: Spend the output of the unconfirmed transaction to myself again, but this time with a fee. I thought maybe a miner would confirm the first transaction in the hopes of being able to confirm the next one (the one with the fee). It worked -- and in a way I didn't know possible. Both of the transactions were confirmed in the same block. I didn't know a block could include two transactions, one of which spends from the output of the other, but apparently it's possible.

Conclusion: If there is a transaction that won't confirm due to a low fee, and you are the intended recipient, then just spend the output to yourself with a fee.

Here's the original transaction that was sent in April and confirmed today:

https://blockchain.info/tx/17f723bc265ebbeef77b2b081e29985c30b737025ed6a6547842d3c24d023797

Here's the second transaction confirmed in the same block (314320) with a fee of 0.0004827:

https://blockchain.info/tx/730546e11c79a3399f1fe7f617a7d4ff28edae1c7732180307ca84c2f1e63af2

And that's the story of how I got back my two mbits from 3.5 months of limbo.

Wow, this is a fantastic discovery with a surprise positive ending to your story! Congratulations on the terrific sleuthing here!!!

Which Bitcoin Wallet software did you use that enabled you to spend the unconfirmed output?? I ask because I know that some clients will not let people spend the unconfirmed output while the original transaction is still pending.

Krona Rev

full member

Activity: 129

Merit: 100

I'm glad your problem seems to be resolved. I've had a similar problem since April 23 -- i.e., over 3 months. I managed to resolve it. I'll share it in case it helps someone in the future.

On April 23 I sent a small transaction from myself to myself. I didn't include a fee. Maybe I was cheap or maybe I forgot. I don't remember. I know the confirmation wasn't urgent. Well, it had been sitting in my wallet "unconfirmed" since then -- for over 3 months. At some point I tried the things described in this thread: rebroadcast with a fee, but it wouldn't get pushed onto the network because it looked like it never would. I waited for the transaction to "fall off" the network so I could resend it, but when I checked every few weeks it was still on blockchain.info as "unconfirmed."

Yesterday I had an idea: Spend the output of the unconfirmed transaction to myself again, but this time with a fee. I thought maybe a miner would confirm the first transaction in the hopes of being able to confirm the next one (the one with the fee). It worked -- and in a way I didn't know possible. Both of the transactions were confirmed in the same block. I didn't know a block could include two transactions, one of which spends from the output of the other, but apparently it's possible.

Conclusion: If there is a transaction that won't confirm due to a low fee, and you are the intended recipient, then just spend the output to yourself with a fee.

Here's the original transaction that was sent in April and confirmed today:

https://blockchain.info/tx/17f723bc265ebbeef77b2b081e29985c30b737025ed6a6547842d3c24d023797

Here's the second transaction confirmed in the same block (314320) with a fee of 0.0004827:

https://blockchain.info/tx/730546e11c79a3399f1fe7f617a7d4ff28edae1c7732180307ca84c2f1e63af2

And that's the story of how I got back my two mbits from 3.5 months of limbo.

BitcoinGirl325

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

The transaction finally "fell off" of Blockchain.info, which was the node that was holding onto it and keeping it "stuck". It took 4 days, but I got my coins back!

I then sent them again with the appropriate fee and everything is now good.

ProfMac

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1002

Quote from: franky1 on August 03, 2014, 10:43:49 AM

anyone care to try to re-push the tx somehow

01000000019230ce51556db4aa00585cb169d1d09b28abca6eae6ac63c7c1b45645e179fc401000 0008b4830450221008e8a12c169ce28a8e43a5d59c78bf3d7ce392ae5da8ade76d7470430b56482 d202206241d68e400ba465668990d5c319415c28201bbd8da851d9c9814cd6e2b3651a014104572 2135b0e7aca6c5f63b1985b7258d29268692ffd99221a8e6b1af0b1ad943a72ec7633fb6ecfc543 9c1dbf10a490cdfdc2be265a6b086a600fc2263a3c1a86ffffffff02c1900200000000001976a91 4433b6bc44b5e8d37883a0e7038a79ad613fbbc3288ac3b800200000000001976a9145559eef599 61ecb7c0919ba4e66967875863a0f788ac00000000

it seems that blockchain.info's pushtx no longer functions right. instead of re-transmitting unconfirmed tx's, it is saying it already exists. (which it should only say that AFTER confirmation)

I checked whether the transaction is ok:

Code:

decoderawtransaction "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"

It appears to decode ok

Code:



{
"txid" : "c238d939b330b682abe1c729300636600254c23c67e1eea4e8daa9abc26dd2c5",
"version" : 1,
"locktime" : 0,
"vin" : [
{
"txid" : "c49f175e64451b7c3cc66aae6ecaab289bd0d169b15c5800aab46d5551ce3092",
"vout" : 1,
"scriptSig" : {
"asm" : "30450221008e8a12c169ce28a8e43a5d59c78bf3d7ce392ae5da8ade76d7470430b56482d202206241d68e400ba465668990d5c319415c28201bbd8da851d9c9814cd6e2b3651a01 045722135b0e7aca6c5f63b1985b7258d29268692ffd99221a8e6b1af0b1ad943a72ec7633fb6ecfc5439c1dbf10a490cdfdc2be265a6b086a600fc2263a3c1a86",
"hex" : "4830450221008e8a12c169ce28a8e43a5d59c78bf3d7ce392ae5da8ade76d7470430b56482d202206241d68e400ba465668990d5c319415c28201bbd8da851d9c9814cd6e2b3651a0141045722135b0e7aca6c5f63b1985b7258d29268692ffd99221a8e6b1af0b1ad943a72ec7633fb6ecfc5439c1dbf10a490cdfdc2be265a6b086a600fc2263a3c1a86"
},
"sequence" : 4294967295
}
],
"vout" : [
{
"value" : 0.00168129,
"n" : 0,
"scriptPubKey" : {
"asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 433b6bc44b5e8d37883a0e7038a79ad613fbbc32 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex" : "76a914433b6bc44b5e8d37883a0e7038a79ad613fbbc3288ac",
"reqSigs" : 1,
"type" : "pubkeyhash",
"addresses" : [
"178VTVdTBQkptzaiCXZ3DDABt8NFqv3YWA"
]
}
},
{
"value" : 0.00163899,
"n" : 1,
"scriptPubKey" : {
"asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 5559eef59961ecb7c0919ba4e66967875863a0f7 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex" : "76a9145559eef59961ecb7c0919ba4e66967875863a0f788ac",
"reqSigs" : 1,
"type" : "pubkeyhash",
"addresses" : [
"18nJAzS2nzjjGNhEif5JbDQaKaXNtYt2fS"
]
}
}
]
}

When I do a sendrawtxransaction, I receive a code 18 bad-txns-inputs-spent message.

Newar

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1001

https://gliph.me/hUF

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on August 05, 2014, 11:20:06 AM

The error may be due to the fact the BCT adds hidden spaces to long strings. Always write txn related stuff in code blocks. However the user doesn't really want the old txn pushed it is actually a good thing if it has poor propogation as it will make it easier to "double spend" it with a txn that has the proper fee.

I thought it might be a formatting problem. I also assumed that this is the new, higher fees tx to try and override the old one.

Topic: Bitcoin is not the answer for microtransactions; how to rebroadcast unconfirmed? (Read 3924 times)