Topic: Electrum asking for update again(?) (Read 363 times)

Thank you. I never encountered this feature. It looks useful.



That's okay since I already got that you wanted to mean.

Here is the weirdest I experienced. From last two days I can spend from the same wallet even when it have unconfirmed tx (That I sent to some other address) exists.

Same wallet but behaving different for the same scenario.

Yes, it's single pk derived from HD wallet. I do it so that it does not add coin from another address which is associated with this same HD wallet.

Thank you. This is what I was missing and all those days derived single keys.

Now you already know the answer.

Thank you and djhomeschool very much for your help and to teach me some new features.

Cheers :-)

Sorry... re-reading that, I used the wrong word... it shouldn't have said created, it should have said "confirmed". I think it is an "impossible loop" type situation. The new transaction is spending a UTXO (We'll call it UTXO-A) that can't exist if this new transaction was added to the blockchain, as it is ALSO spending a UTXO that was used to create the transaction that actually creates UTXO-A.

It's a weird "double spend"-type scenario... and possibly just related to the order in which the server is parsing your transaction for validity.

The scenario that I can think of, would be something like this:
1. You create a transaction, that spends UTXO-X, that creates UTXO-A... but this is not confirmed.
2. You then create a 2nd transaction, that tries to spend UTXO-A, while also spending UTXO-X.
3. The server, while parsing the transaction, notes that you're spending UTXO-A and checks to see how this was created, then notes that you're spending UTXO-X... if that happened, then UTXO-A couldn't exist.

BOOM! you get the "bad-txns-spends-conflicting-tx" error... I'm not 100% sure if this is actually correct, but is one scenario I can think of that would trigger this specific error.


No, that isn't the case at all... You can actually create long chains of unconfirmed transactions. I suspect your issue is possibly caused because of the way you're creating "single" address wallets... from single keys derived from an HD wallet??!?

If you're using Electrum, and want to pick and choose exactly which address you want to send from or, more correctly, which specific UTXO(s) you want to spend, you should be using the "Coin Control" features within Electrum. If you use the menu option: "View -> Show Coins", and then select the "Coins" tab, Electrum shows each individual UTXO that your wallet currently controls. You can select as many or as few UTXOs as you want (using CTRL or SHIFT + left click etc)... then right click on the selected coin(s) and select "Spend". This will create a transaction that spends ONLY the selected UTXOs.

That would be a much much much easier way to go about doing what it is that you appear to be trying to do... Why exactly are you creating single address wallets to spend from an HD wallet?

So the addresses in your wallet are p2pkh ones i.e. 1 address right? It could be that you were hit by transaction id changes by miners what is also called transaction ID malleability. That would break the link between child and parent transactions.

Yes and no...

You can select to spend only confirmed coins. Tools - Preferences - Transactions.

I don't know if that also applies for the way you are creating transactions.

With me, every time i do a tx with Electrum ALL coins are send, that is because Electrum works with change addresses.
Example:

I have 2 BTC in my Electrum wallet, i send 0.5 BTC, the remaining 1.5 BTC will also be send to a change address so it will also be unconfirmed untill it reaches a block... know what i mean?

Thanks TryNinja, HCP and nc50lc.

Some of the explanations from HCP make sense to me. Here was the situation for me,

I have this HD wallet but when I spend then I pick an address, take its private key and restore the single address wallet to spend from it. This specific address had more than enough balance which I was suppose to spend. And before spending the issue raised tx, I sent another tx few hours ago which had very low fee (believe me it was only 1.9 sat/B LOL) and for this reason it was unconfirmed at the time I was initiating the 2nd tx. So when I tried the 2nd tx, I always ended up with the errors I mentioned on my OP (@nc50lc, there were always the green icons on the left and one unconfirmed tx).

So, it's confusing why it had to add my previous tx with the new tx I was initiating?

The tx was created and the UTXO was already exist if my third paragraph on this post make sense to you. There were only one unconfirmed tx and those confirmed txes were confirmed long ago in that specific address (wallet)

I am most certain about it which concludes that if you have an unconfirmed tx then you can not initiate another tx? (this is actually the same happened here. Later once the unconfirmed tx confirmed then I was able to create the 2nd tx. )

This "Senior" or parent transactions has "Unknown" TXID and built in a weird way.
[Input 1, Input 2 ---> Outputs: Gambling Site Address, Change of Input 1, Change of Input 1 to the same address, Input 2]

I think you're misunderstanding "Inputs" from "Addresses".
An Address is just an identifier and can have multiple "Inputs" or UTXO, so, if the Marked Red one have received bitcoins before, there's a chance that the second transaction's input wasn't spent from that (screenshot) transaction and it's a local transaction (No TXID).

Are you sure that there's no Local transaction in your history? Small Icons on the left should be green check or Gears for unconfirmed Tx.

"Missing Inputs" means that the server has rejected your transaction because you are attempting to spend a UTXO that it does not have in it's UTXO pool... ie. the input doesn't exist, or has already been spent.

"bad-txns-spends-conflicting-tx" is defined in Bitcoin Core as "A transaction that spends outputs that would be replaced by it is invalid." So, it seems it is trying to spend a UTXO that wouldn't exist if your transaction was actually created.

Definitely seems like the issue is caused by having unconfirmed transactions etc...


As long as you verified the digital signature, you'll be fine.

Did your wallet have a password? If so, it will ask for it when you open it.

Also, where did you downloaded it from? Make sure it was from ELECTRUM.ORG (triple-check the URL) and optionally (but highly recommended) verify the file signature to see if it is legit. Here is how to do it: https://bitcoinelectrum.com/how-to-verify-your-electrum-download/

Hello
Just upgrading to new Electrum wallet v3.3.4 on Mac OS Mojave... and its asking for my password to open my wallets. That's cool isn't it? Just being scarred by the whole phishing nonsense with an older version is all.
Ta y'all

1. I’m not sure. I’ve never seen this happen.
2. I’m pretty sure it is. Until someone who knows things comes here to help you fix that (I don’t know, lol), you could wait for your first tx gets confirmed to spend the coins. You could also try deleting Electrum’s entire folder, installing it again and reimporting your wallet (please make sure you have your seed/backup if you do this).

Nothing happens. The moment you broadcast it, the transaction shows up in the nodes mempools around the network to get picked by a miner.

Until you do the broadcast, it’s like the transaction didn’t happen yet. Think of this like writing a letter but not sending it through the mail.

Correct!

The output in red is basically the entire transaction of the previous unconfirmed payment I made. I did not include this payment with the current tx I was initiating.

The greed output was my actual payment. Including the fees it was suppose to be 0.00522031BTC but if you see the image, on the amount sent section it added up amount from previous tx too (total: 0.01711596 btc).

Basically I wanted to send the fund to a gambling site to bet. If I was successful to send the fund then I would lose the bet LOL (Lucky me)

Anyway, sorry about the off - topic. I am still not sure why it's happening,

1. Why the earlier tx included with the current one?
2. Is this the reason of the error(s) I experienced?

Sorry about the late response. I already forgot about this since I was watching the match that I was intended to bet.

Additional question:
What happen if I sign a tx but do not broadcast?

Oh, so the unconfirmed transaction was originated by you? I thought that you were receiving and not spending. In that case, it would be an issue if you were spending an input that was already spent in the pending unconfirmed transaction. So, what do you mean with “one is the output I spent earlier”? You spend inputs and not outputs.

Or are you saying that the output in red (0.01211596 BTC) is part of your first transaction, that you didn’t write that address in this tx and basically it showed up from nowhere?

Oh sorry, I don't think it's necessary.

These are the files only and them has nothing to do with the new installations. Consider them as a file you copy and paste from any other computer or drive.

I didn't ask about installing new update. I asked, Is this necessary Uninstall the previous version & deleting all appdata files before installing new update?

Good to see your comment. I was waiting for you :-)

I wish I could share the unconfirmed tx which I spent earlier today. It's low fees so I am thinking this will take a long time to confirm.

Anyway here is the senior:




I am trying to spend 0.005BTC
The fees will be 0.00022031BTC  at 50.3 sat/B (as you can see)

If you check the 4 outputs then you will see the red one is the output that I spent earlier and the tx is still unconfirmed. I am not sure why it's coming in this transaction?

By the way the other two outputs marked as black are the same address which I am sending from. I am using single address.


As far as I understand that it's good to have latest update installed. This keeps you safe from any unexpected risks. By the way, I am still having the same problem. I think it's not about the version I have, it's something to do with the unconfirmed tx I have. I am just not sure. I am still waiting for TryNinja.

Cheers :-)

I’m not sure. Since you received the “missing inputs” error, you must be trying to spend the inputs coming from the unconfirmed transaction. Would you mind sharing the tx id of the unconfirmed tx and try making your tx again, but this time pressing “Preview”, “Copy” and pasting what you get here?

No. Usually, you can just download and install/run the new update. No need to uninstall the old version.

Is this instruction necessary for installing every new update?

I do not have a local transaction but I have an unconfirmed transaction. Is this related to this transaction? If yes then how?

Thanks in advance.

Do you have any Local transaction in your wallet? If so, remove it and try making the tx again.

I just tried.

Updated to the latest but still I see the same massage. I am going to uninstall again and then delete everything from my appdata folder. Then restart the system before installing a fresh copy.

I'm not seeing that error but if you're not using version 3.3.4 I suggest you update ASAP.

We are aware of the Electrum update phishing scam that happened few months ago and we have seen a lot of people to lose their funds. Today I was trying to send some funds and every time I am trying, I am seeing some different messages including a suggestion  to update the Electrum.





I am thinking to update my Electrum with a fresh download.


Is anyone facing the same error?