Topic: Question Regarding a Pending Transaction (Read 235 times)

Update: I'm now seeing the transaction in both of my node mempools.  Funny however it took weeks and weeks for this to show up and it only did so after posting here 

Correction to previous post, the time the transaction hit my German node was 21:04 yesterday 11 February 2024.  Not today as it had earlier been suggested.  I've yet to see it hit my Canadian node as of this post.

Additionally, I'm not sure if this is beneficial information or not however I noticed that when the transaction hit my German node it was timestamped between blocks 829990 and 829991 whcih were mined by Foundry USA and Antpool respectively. The only unexpected transaction as per mempool dot space was in block 829991 which was TXN ID 015bd7aca8f853fdce9ce241667ad47ee6a0c08d2d9aa32402fa2af7232c5d53 that seems to have features of SegWit, Taproot, and RBF.  Also to reiterate my node will not see taproot as it is core v 20.2. 

Thanks for any feedback on this one as has me a bit concerned regarding transaction propagation through the pleb node network.

This is interesting.  I'm just now seeing that transaction (73e65b2aba2a493e5db4cd19976b608e5bc4925952bc3020354fe56d9cef8d25) has showed up in one of my nodes mempool today as of 21:04 UTC.  The node of mine that is now seeing this TXN is the one in which I ran the decoderawtransaction command after copying it from the mempool dot space site.  Interestingly however my other node has yet to see this transaction in it's mempool. Perhaps noteworthy is that the IP address of the node that is seeing the pending transaction noted is located in Germany and the one yet to see the transaction has an IP address located in Canada....

I wouldn't have thought so either however this particular transaction has been pending for several weeks according to mempool dot space and blockstream dot info and yet it has not showed up on any of my nodes.  Very odd and I hope someone who has a better understanding than me about it could try to take a better look into it and provide some feedback.  Thanks again to all for your replies.

Not that I am aware of any issues that can cause this kind of discrepancy in the propogation but as usual there can be a few minutes delay.

I read Network partitioning is a serious vulnerability that caused a similar kind of issue that you are talking but it was fixed a long back.

Since this isn't my transaction I honestly don't care to rebroadcast it or whether or not it succeeds from a financial standpoint. My concern rather is that it is seemingly a valid transaction according to the menpool dot pace website's node and also blockstream dot info yet for some reason it isn't being seen by either of my two nodes. My concern is that there is some kind of technical issue that's preventing certain transactions from being propagated to certain nodes and that is something that should be of concern for the entire community.

My guess is that you need to rebroadcast it.  (I might be wrong, please someone correct me if I am wrong)

Your node mempool was full when you broadcasted it. So, it didn't reach your node.

Now your node has space, but nobody is broadcasting your transaction anymore, as it was broadcasted long ago and most nodes mempool is full with 20+ sat vB transactions..

Someone has to send that transaction to your node.

Try to rebroadcast it here:
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/assets/btc/broadcast-transaction

If you don't have the raw transaction, you can get it here:
https://bitcoindata.science/bitcoin-raw-transaction-hex

or here:
https://mempool.space/tx/***your tx id*** then, look for raw and click it.

It might work. I would try that.

I'm curious if anyone else can see this transaction running pre taproot bitcoin core nodes.  Again this is for transaction ID 73e65b2aba2a493e5db4cd19976b608e5bc4925952bc3020354fe56d9cef8d25 .  This has got me stumped.

Also noted in an earlier post, I've noticed an ongoing memory size and transaction count discrepancies between my nodes ever since the taproot roll out.  And just for convenience I'm running v 20.2 both with the same config options set.

Also here's the output from the data on mempool dot space


decoderawtransaction 02000000000101039e22a2307f736baed142bbe3faab8c73af359d66abdc0ed82894bec5acd4080 000000017160014f7b69d0d55cbc447c1fcfee91731bf12638d30f5fdffffff0264c0f505000000 0017a914c9a102d204d83d2725d84bf8b8124bf879614f5b87391b0000000000001976a9147c28f a5c7f37de70fd6b74b5e7ce6c8e575e90df88ac02483045022100f65393217d2c83c71f11ecb101 25bd277de5bb2bc08e3eac296ce3bcef38c3980220351e68d01c12495a1e30912174e7a76bca1b6 8f7d55fb904aa5010f57bdc55610121033e123903b5d3891da423fdc387e096a8b16558820e612d e8176dff650d9d709f68a00c00

{
  "txid": "73e65b2aba2a493e5db4cd19976b608e5bc4925952bc3020354fe56d9cef8d25",
  "hash": "b7e5b1f2fd2400b932c3efc69ba1f27943a7298dd5d81e4ab9ddc2837cfdd33a",
  "version": 2,
  "size": 250,
  "vsize": 168,
  "weight": 670,
  "locktime": 827496,
  "vin": [
    {
      "txid": "08d4acc5be9428d80edcab669d35af738cabfae3bb42d1ae6b737f30a2229e03",
      "vout": 0,
      "scriptSig": {
        "asm": "0014f7b69d0d55cbc447c1fcfee91731bf12638d30f5",
        "hex": "160014f7b69d0d55cbc447c1fcfee91731bf12638d30f5"
      },
      "txinwitness": [
        "3045022100f65393217d2c83c71f11ecb10125bd277de5bb2bc08e3eac296ce3bcef38c39802203 51e68d01c12495a1e30912174e7a76bca1b68f7d55fb904aa5010f57bdc556101",
        "033e123903b5d3891da423fdc387e096a8b16558820e612de8176dff650d9d709f"
      ],
      "sequence": 4294967293
    }
  ],
  "vout": [
    {
      "value": 0.99991652,
      "n": 0,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "OP_HASH160 c9a102d204d83d2725d84bf8b8124bf879614f5b OP_EQUAL",
        "hex": "a914c9a102d204d83d2725d84bf8b8124bf879614f5b87",
        "reqSigs": 1,
        "type": "scripthash",
        "addresses": [
          "3L58dLrzcoKy2VHr5VHisbrT1pGaHexE1U"
        ]
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.00006969,
      "n": 1,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 7c28fa5c7f37de70fd6b74b5e7ce6c8e575e90df OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
        "hex": "76a9147c28fa5c7f37de70fd6b74b5e7ce6c8e575e90df88ac",
        "reqSigs": 1,
        "type": "pubkeyhash",
        "addresses": [
          "1CKVszDdUp4ymGceAZpGzYEFr4RPNHYqaM"
        ]
      }
    }
  ]
}

This isn't my transaction.  I'm just seeing it on mempool dot space and trying to understand why it's not being propagated to my node.

Maybe you need to re broadcast it.?

I put your raw transaction here
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/assets/btc/broadcast-transaction

Let's see if it shows up

Thanks for the reply.  Would not the getmempoolinfo command show me how much it would take to get into my node's mempool?  Here is the output of that command:


16:23:13

getmempoolinfo

16:23:13

{
  "loaded": true,
  "size": 72900,
  "bytes": 197306637,
  "usage": 625216656,
  "maxmempool": 1500000000,
  "mempoolminfee": 0.00001000,
  "minrelaytxfee": 0.00001000
}


That said, while I understand the fee is low, should it not still exist in my mempool considering that the minrelaytxfee is 0.00001000? My understand is that since this transaction is ~8.2 sat/vB and that the virtual size is 168 vB with the total fee being BTC 0.00001379, then it should be there in my local node's mempool yet it is not.

Also FYI my mempool has a 1500 MB setting. TIA

Exactly

There is a limit of 300mb to mempool is most nodes (can be more or less), and to reacht his standard limit you need at least 12 sat vB now



You can check those values at mempool.space

You can confirm that transaction by using RBF (replace by fee)
Just click increase fee in electrum



You should  use at least 25 sat vB to get a confirmation today **probably **

Or you can just set above 40 to get into the next block.

I just checked the transaction ID on the Mempool and it's actually not verified because the fee rate is way too low. Like damn 8 sat/byte for that amount of BTC is just too low.
The reason you can't find it on the nodes you checked is probably because it was purged due to extremely low fees.
I experienced something very similar to this sometime ago when I broadcasted a transaction with a fee of about 11sat/ byte and it was purged out of the Mempool of a majority of nodes. In fact it was only the node network of the wallet I used that even attempted broadcasting it.
Here is the thread I created when I had that issue;
[PROBLEM SOLVED] transaction hash not found
I recommend you check it out to understand better.

Supplemental Info:

Although the transaction isn't listed in either of my node's mempool, I was able to copy the raw transaction from mempool dot space and decoded it using the decoderawtransaction command and it produced the following output:


16:43:44

decoderawtransaction 02000000000101039e22a2307f736baed142bbe3faab8c73af359d66abdc0ed82894bec5acd4080 000000017160014f7b69d0d55cbc447c1fcfee91731bf12638d30f5fdffffff0264c0f505000000 0017a914c9a102d204d83d2725d84bf8b8124bf879614f5b87391b0000000000001976a9147c28f a5c7f37de70fd6b74b5e7ce6c8e575e90df88ac02483045022100f65393217d2c83c71f11ecb101 25bd277de5bb2bc08e3eac296ce3bcef38c3980220351e68d01c12495a1e30912174e7a76bca1b6 8f7d55fb904aa5010f57bdc55610121033e123903b5d3891da423fdc387e096a8b16558820e612d e8176dff650d9d709f68a00c00


16:43:44

{
  "txid": "73e65b2aba2a493e5db4cd19976b608e5bc4925952bc3020354fe56d9cef8d25",
  "hash": "b7e5b1f2fd2400b932c3efc69ba1f27943a7298dd5d81e4ab9ddc2837cfdd33a",
  "version": 2,
  "size": 250,
  "vsize": 168,
  "weight": 670,
  "locktime": 827496,
  "vin": [
    {
      "txid": "08d4acc5be9428d80edcab669d35af738cabfae3bb42d1ae6b737f30a2229e03",
      "vout": 0,
      "scriptSig": {
        "asm": "0014f7b69d0d55cbc447c1fcfee91731bf12638d30f5",
        "hex": "160014f7b69d0d55cbc447c1fcfee91731bf12638d30f5"
      },
      "txinwitness": [
        "3045022100f65393217d2c83c71f11ecb10125bd277de5bb2bc08e3eac296ce3bcef38c39802203 51e68d01c12495a1e30912174e7a76bca1b68f7d55fb904aa5010f57bdc556101",
        "033e123903b5d3891da423fdc387e096a8b16558820e612de8176dff650d9d709f"
      ],
      "sequence": 4294967293
    }
  ],
  "vout": [
    {
      "value": 0.99991652,
      "n": 0,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "OP_HASH160 c9a102d204d83d2725d84bf8b8124bf879614f5b OP_EQUAL",
        "hex": "a914c9a102d204d83d2725d84bf8b8124bf879614f5b87",
        "reqSigs": 1,
        "type": "scripthash",
        "addresses": [
          "3L58dLrzcoKy2VHr5VHisbrT1pGaHexE1U"
        ]
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.00006969,
      "n": 1,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 7c28fa5c7f37de70fd6b74b5e7ce6c8e575e90df OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
        "hex": "76a9147c28fa5c7f37de70fd6b74b5e7ce6c8e575e90df88ac",
        "reqSigs": 1,
        "type": "pubkeyhash",
        "addresses": [
          "1CKVszDdUp4ymGceAZpGzYEFr4RPNHYqaM"
        ]
      }
    }
  ]
}


Perhaps this will help one of your transaction experts identify why it's not in my node's mempool. Thanks.

Hi all,

Every since Bitwise has posted their ETF bitcoin address ( 1CKVszDdUp4ymGceAZpGzYEFr4RPNHYqaM ) I've been watching to try to get an idea of how much Tradfi was stacking (even though it is supposedly hosted on Coinbase and no other ETF has publicly posted their addresses as of yet).  Either way I've noticed that there has been a pending transaction ( 73e65b2aba2a493e5db4cd19976b608e5bc4925952bc3020354fe56d9cef8d25 )that does not show up in either of my mempools that I'm running on my two pre taproot nodes that run Version 20.2 each.

Both of my nodes are running on Windows based machines and I do have the permitbaremultisig and the datacarrier config options each set to zero however I don't think that either of these apply to this transaction (though maybe I'm wrong?).   Either way I was just curious to if anyone here would be able to tell me why that transaction isn't showing up.  As per mempool dot space it is a SEGWIT and RBF enabled transaction.  I've also checked my nodes to see what the  minrelaytxfee was set to and it's currently 0.00001000 which means that it shouldn't be filtered out as from what I understand the 8.23 sats per byte that's listed in mempool multiplied by the amount of virtual bytes should put it at > 1000 sats. 

Thanks in advance for your replies.