Bitcoin is slowly shit. - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Birdy

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: Ephebus on September 13, 2013, 08:54:41 AM

Quote from: greyhawk on September 13, 2013, 08:46:29 AM

No, it has nothing to do with fees. The input to the transaction was taken from previous unconfirmed transactions. The network couldn't verify the input as existing as it is unconfirmed so the transaction was rejected. The casino will have to update their routines to handle building transactions correctly.

That's great information. Do you know if something like that could happen if someone sent Bitcoins from the standard Bitcoin client with -paytxfee=0 ?

Without basing it in unconfirmed inputs:
As far as I know the wallet would keep on broadcasting the transaction and try to get it through (and you wouldn't see the Bitcoins in there as they are marked as reserved for transaction). So you would have to screw around the wallet a bit to get rid of that.
That's more of a guess than knowing though ^^

Quote

I'm pretty sure the standard client will not let you send a transaction from unconfirmed inputs. But then again I have not tried.

When you do a transaction to an address within your wallet, you can send those Bitcoins again before the transaction is confirmed.

greyhawk

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 1009

Quote from: Ephebus on September 13, 2013, 08:54:41 AM

Quote from: greyhawk on September 13, 2013, 08:46:29 AM

No, it has nothing to do with fees. The input to the transaction was taken from previous unconfirmed transactions. The network couldn't verify the input as existing as it is unconfirmed so the transaction was rejected. The casino will have to update their routines to handle building transactions correctly.

That's great information. Do you know if something like that could happen if someone sent Bitcoins from the standard Bitcoin client with -paytxfee=0 ?

I'm pretty sure the standard client will not let you send a transaction from unconfirmed inputs. But then again I have not tried.

Ephebus

newbie

Activity: 57

Merit: 0

Quote from: greyhawk on September 13, 2013, 08:46:29 AM

No, it has nothing to do with fees. The input to the transaction was taken from previous unconfirmed transactions. The network couldn't verify the input as existing as it is unconfirmed so the transaction was rejected. The casino will have to update their routines to handle building transactions correctly.

That's great information. Do you know if something like that could happen if someone sent Bitcoins from the standard Bitcoin client with -paytxfee=0 ?

greyhawk

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 1009

Quote from: Ephebus on September 13, 2013, 08:41:12 AM

So, in a nutshell: the Bitcoins were sent from an address belonging to the casino and blockchain.info showed the transaction until it was rejected by the network because of insufficient fees. That way, the Bitcoins remain in the casino's original wallet.

No, it has nothing to do with fees. The input to the transaction was taken from previous unconfirmed transactions. The network couldn't verify the input as existing as it is unconfirmed so the transaction was rejected. The casino will have to update their routines to handle building transactions correctly.

Quote from: Ephebus on September 13, 2013, 08:41:12 AM

Now it's up to the casino operators to verify that and, if they're honest, correct the OP's balance on their site or send the Bitcoins again with enough fees. Correct?

That's correct.

Birdy

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: Ephebus on September 13, 2013, 08:41:12 AM

That way, the Bitcoins remain in the casino's original wallet. Now it's up to the casino operators to verify that and, if they're honest, correct the OP's balance on their site or send the Bitcoins again with enough fees. Correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Ephebus

newbie

Activity: 57

Merit: 0

Quote from: greyhawk on September 13, 2013, 08:27:14 AM

Quote from: Ephebus on September 13, 2013, 08:22:08 AM

Quote from: Birdy on September 13, 2013, 07:58:49 AM

Quote from: johny1976 on September 13, 2013, 06:57:43 AM

Quote from: Ephebus on September 13, 2013, 06:54:41 AM

OK, so considering a situation like this: someone sends Bitcoins and doesn't include a transfer fee. What happens to those Bitcoins if the network "decides" not to deliver them to the destination address? Are they returned to the sender?

Good question. Anybody knows an answer?

They were never sent in the first place then and are still on the old address.
(might only be that some clients don't show them, because they are marked as "reserved to be sent")
Bitcoins are never "lost in cyberspace" they are always on a Bitcoin address.

That makes a lot of sense. But isn't it kind of pointless for a client to generate a transaction number for a transaction that is never going to occur? That's what's confusing me. And from what the OP said, it seems that at some point the transaction was showing on blockchain.info.

If you look in the other thread, you'll see what happened that a transaction was sent out that relied on a previous unconfirmed transaction. The second transaction was rejected and removed from the network.

Quote from: Birdy on September 13, 2013, 08:25:56 AM

The client creates a transaction number and broadcasts the transaction, so that miners can grab and include them (and blockchain can show the transaction), but until it's included in a block the Bitcoins didn't move.

So, in a nutshell: the Bitcoins were sent from an address belonging to the casino and blockchain.info showed the transaction until it was rejected by the network because of insufficient fees. That way, the Bitcoins remain in the casino's original wallet. Now it's up to the casino operators to verify that and, if they're honest, correct the OP's balance on their site or send the Bitcoins again with enough fees. Correct?

greyhawk

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 1009

Quote from: nildram on September 13, 2013, 08:34:31 AM

Quote from: Kluge on September 12, 2013, 02:50:26 PM

There are four (possibly more, depending on if there's an even longer chain than I can quickly see displayed) unconfirmed inputs with below-recommended fees. That transaction will probably disappear from the queue before it ever goes through.

Do you mean that it might never actually go through?

No, it has already been rejected completely. See also the other thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/wtf-transaction-got-lost-at-blockchain-293554

nildram

newbie

Activity: 38

Merit: 0

Quote from: Kluge on September 12, 2013, 02:50:26 PM

There are four (possibly more, depending on if there's an even longer chain than I can quickly see displayed) unconfirmed inputs with below-recommended fees. That transaction will probably disappear from the queue before it ever goes through.

Do you mean that it might never actually go through?

nicholasd

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0

I had the same issue transfering a few bitcents from my MtGox account, That little pesky checkbox doesn't look checked even when it is when I'm on my Ubuntu box

greyhawk

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 1009

Quote from: Ephebus on September 13, 2013, 08:22:08 AM

Quote from: Birdy on September 13, 2013, 07:58:49 AM

Quote from: johny1976 on September 13, 2013, 06:57:43 AM

Quote from: Ephebus on September 13, 2013, 06:54:41 AM

OK, so considering a situation like this: someone sends Bitcoins and doesn't include a transfer fee. What happens to those Bitcoins if the network "decides" not to deliver them to the destination address? Are they returned to the sender?

Good question. Anybody knows an answer?

They were never sent in the first place then and are still on the old address.
(might only be that some clients don't show them, because they are marked as "reserved to be sent")
Bitcoins are never "lost in cyberspace" they are always on a Bitcoin address.

That makes a lot of sense. But isn't it kind of pointless for a client to generate a transaction number for a transaction that is never going to occur? That's what's confusing me. And from what the OP said, it seems that at some point the transaction was showing on blockchain.info.

If you look in the other thread, you'll see what happened that a transaction was sent out that relied on a previous unconfirmed transaction. The second transaction was rejected and removed from the network.

Birdy

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: Ephebus on September 13, 2013, 08:22:08 AM

That makes a lot of sense. But isn't it kind of pointless for a client to generate a transaction number for a transaction that is never going to occur? That's what's confusing me. And from what the OP said, it seems that at some point the transaction was showing up on blockchain.info.

The client creates a transaction number and broadcasts the transaction, so that miners can grab and include them (and blockchain can show the transaction), but until it's included in a block the Bitcoins didn't move.

You see the blockchain points to an address x and says "the 3 Bitcoins are there" and including the transaction in a block moves the pointer "the 3 bitcoins are there at address y"
The Bitcoins are never really "sent", so they cannot be lost. They are either on address x or y.

Ephebus

newbie

Activity: 57

Merit: 0

Quote from: Birdy on September 13, 2013, 07:58:49 AM

Quote from: johny1976 on September 13, 2013, 06:57:43 AM

Quote from: Ephebus on September 13, 2013, 06:54:41 AM

OK, so considering a situation like this: someone sends Bitcoins and doesn't include a transfer fee. What happens to those Bitcoins if the network "decides" not to deliver them to the destination address? Are they returned to the sender?

Good question. Anybody knows an answer?

They were never sent in the first place then and are still on the old address.
(might only be that some clients don't show them, because they are marked as "reserved to be sent")
Bitcoins are never "lost in cyberspace" they are always on a Bitcoin address.

That makes a lot of sense. But isn't it kind of pointless for a client to generate a transaction number for a transaction that is never going to occur? That's what's confusing me. And from what the OP said, it seems that at some point the transaction was showing on blockchain.info.

marcovaldo

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Slow is fine, as long as it confirms.
I am still waiting for 10 days for 0.02 btc to confirm (just moving from one wallet to an other)....

Itcher

full member

Activity: 364

Merit: 100

Quote from: Ephebus on September 13, 2013, 07:42:06 AM

First, congratulations to the trolls who have bank accounts that charge no fees because they're very wealthy or whatever other reason. Second, a "please get lost" to the other trolls bashing the OP because he was playing at whatever casino he wanted to play at.

Now let's get back to the problem in question: the OP's transaction disappeared from blockchain.info, and he hasn't received his Bitcoins. Did they return to the casino's address they were sent from? With the transaction information gone, how do we know for sure what happened to the Bitcoins?

OPs title was "Bitcoin is slowly shit." not "my transaction disappeared from blockchain.info". Who are you to call people troll who complain about slowliness and fees of bitcoin?

Sorry, if you are not willing to hear this. But both - slowliness and fees - are problems.

Birdy

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: johny1976 on September 13, 2013, 06:57:43 AM

Quote from: Ephebus on September 13, 2013, 06:54:41 AM

OK, so considering a situation like this: someone sends Bitcoins and doesn't include a transfer fee. What happens to those Bitcoins if the network "decides" not to deliver them to the destination address? Are they returned to the sender?

Good question. Anybody knows an answer?

They were never sent in the first place then and are still on the old address.
(might only be that some clients don't show them, because they are marked as "reserved to be sent")
Bitcoins are never "lost in cyberspace" they are always on a Bitcoin address.

Ephebus

newbie

Activity: 57

Merit: 0

First, congratulations to the trolls who have bank accounts that charge no fees because they're very wealthy or whatever other reason. Second, a "please get lost" to the other trolls bashing the OP because he was playing at whatever casino he wanted to play at.

Now let's get back to the problem in question: the OP's transaction disappeared from blockchain.info, and he hasn't received his Bitcoins. Did they return to the casino's address they were sent from? With the transaction information gone, how do we know for sure what happened to the Bitcoins?

Itcher

full member

Activity: 364

Merit: 100

Quote from: Mitchell on September 13, 2013, 06:59:12 AM

Quote from: Itcher on September 13, 2013, 06:51:37 AM

Quote from: will1982 on September 13, 2013, 06:41:48 AM

Quote from: Itcher on September 13, 2013, 06:31:03 AM

No reason to become ugly about bitcoin.

But for real we have two problems:

- you have to pay fees. MultuBit / electrum give you no option not to pay fees. The dream of bitcoin as feeless money-transmitter is dead
- even if you pay fees the transaction is annoyingly slow. I had to wait one or two hour, and I payed fees.

This is really bad for bitcoin

The fee right now is 0.0005 BTC. That's 6 cents USD. First off:
-Bitcoin still is the cheapest way to move money internationally or long distance
-There has always been a fee. When did you dream about "feeless" money transfer?

6 cent are 6 cent more than I have to pay when using my bank account.

Lol, have fun sending money to a place outside your country. From USA to Europa for example. I really like BitCoin and if you aren't dumb enough to add enough fees (which costs almost nothing) you will have a great time using it. Also, taking a day to confirm isn't bad at all. If I send money to another bank in my own country it can take up to 1 day before it's processed. If I want to send it to the country next to me this increases significant (and would cost me a lot more). So I prefer BitCoin above all.

Lol, I have a great time using my bank-account to spend money without paying any fee. Even if every shop accepts bitcoin it would be the worse option.

International transaction are not the issue here. If widely used bitcoin could be an improvement for real.

greyhawk

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 1009

Quote from: Mitchell on September 13, 2013, 06:59:12 AM

Lol, have fun sending money to a place outside your country.

That.... might actually be an American thing. I have never paid anything for anything at my bank. Then again my monthly influx on that account is high enough I qualify for the Never-Pay-Anything-For-Anything type account. So maybe this is a problem specifically only affecting poors.

Liquid

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 500

Crypto Somnium

http://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

EFS

staff

Activity: 3822

Merit: 2123

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: johny1976 on September 13, 2013, 06:57:43 AM

Quote from: Ephebus on September 13, 2013, 06:54:41 AM

OK, so considering a situation like this: someone sends Bitcoins and doesn't include a transfer fee. What happens to those Bitcoins if the network "decides" not to deliver them to the destination address? Are they returned to the sender?

Good question. Anybody knows an answer?

I wonder the answer of this question too. Is there a chance them to lost in space or something? How to recover long-time pending payments?

Topic: Bitcoin is slowly shit. - page 2. (Read 12976 times)