There also is no damn protocol.
Ask darkwallet what they think about the protocol. It's not the same answer you get from just anyone you ask.
Topic: Raw transaction - forgot to include tx costs - now money in limbo (Read 2152 times)
January 23, 2014, 12:41:24 AM
I agree the official wiki should be kept fully up to date with current bitcoin protocol. That's pretty basic communication.
Well then, why haven't you kept it fully up to date? It is a wiki after all. It is up to people who care about it (such as yourself) to maintain it. If you don't, then it will be out of date.
Why don't you do it then?
Exactly.
When it comes to open source, it does no good to complain and say that "something should be done." If you want something done, then do it.
January 23, 2014, 12:38:15 AM
I agree the official wiki should be kept fully up to date with current bitcoin protocol. That's pretty basic communication.
Well then, why haven't you kept it fully up to date? It is a wiki after all. It is up to people who care about it (such as yourself) to maintain it. If you don't, then it will be out of date.
Why don't you do it then?
January 23, 2014, 12:23:56 AM
I agree the official wiki should be kept fully up to date with current bitcoin protocol. That's pretty basic communication.
Well then, why haven't you kept it fully up to date? It is a wiki after all. It is up to people who care about it (such as yourself) to maintain it. If you don't, then it will be out of date.
January 23, 2014, 12:17:43 AM
I agree the official wiki should be kept fully up to date with current bitcoin protocol. That's pretty basic communication.
January 23, 2014, 12:09:08 AM
It's funny. This performance is still far higher than that of banks, yet the bitching.
Nobody likes uncertainty. The OP was concerned the transaction wouldn't happen and his coins would disappear. Education, education, education.
I would say it is lack of documentation which makes it really hard for ambitious users like me, who want to do all the fancy stuff people talk about at conferences, but who do not have connections. The wiki is not comprehensive at all. for example I did not see the formula for the priority. I would like to get educated on things. But with the documentation as poor as it is, I sometimes feel I'd need to sit on Mike Hearns lap to get the info I need.
Example: For ages everybody is talking about multi-sig, yet the only valuable document is this document of Gavin which is really from the stone ages.
Sry, dont want to bitch around, but I am a bit disapointed about the accesibility of open-source. How many people are really running bitcoin? Maybe a hundred. I thought it was much more.
The only way to learn is lurking here. I'm still learning myself. The problem with documentation is that only the source code truly defines the protocol do there isn't total agreement.
January 22, 2014, 09:56:05 PM
It's funny. This performance is still far higher than that of banks, yet the bitching.
Nobody likes uncertainty. The OP was concerned the transaction wouldn't happen and his coins would disappear. Education, education, education.
I would say it is lack of documentation which makes it really hard for ambitious users like me, who want to do all the fancy stuff people talk about at conferences, but who do not have connections. The wiki is not comprehensive at all. for example I did not see the formula for the priority. I would like to get educated on things. But with the documentation as poor as it is, I sometimes feel I'd need to sit on Mike Hearns lap to get the info I need.
Example: For ages everybody is talking about multi-sig, yet the only valuable document is this document of Gavin which is really from the stone ages.
Sry, dont want to bitch around, but I am a bit disapointed about the accesibility of open-source. How many people are really running bitcoin? Maybe a hundred. I thought it was much more.
In the last 24 hours three pools got 69% of total blocks. Are they leaving to the small pools blocks with zero fee transactions?
January 22, 2014, 06:13:16 PM
It's funny. This performance is still far higher than that of banks, yet the bitching.
Nobody likes uncertainty. The OP was concerned the transaction wouldn't happen and his coins would disappear. Education, education, education.
I would say it is lack of documentation which makes it really hard for ambitious users like me, who want to do all the fancy stuff people talk about at conferences, but who do not have connections. The wiki is not comprehensive at all. for example I did not see the formula for the priority. I would like to get educated on things. But with the documentation as poor as it is, I sometimes feel I'd need to sit on Mike Hearns lap to get the info I need.
Example: For ages everybody is talking about multi-sig, yet the only valuable document is this document of Gavin which is really from the stone ages.
Sry, dont want to bitch around, but I am a bit disapointed about the accesibility of open-source. How many people are really running bitcoin? Maybe a hundred. I thought it was much more.
January 22, 2014, 03:19:13 PM
No, the priority is very very low
This^
Your transaction's priority is
(5000000 * 123)/223 =2757847.53363
[...]
Just wait for some time, it will get confirmed.
A few months ago I sent a 0-fee transaction with a priority of 100M, it took several hours to confirm. This one could take weeks.
January 22, 2014, 01:14:30 PM
The foundation is trying to get some documents out the door that handle this problem. The bitcoin wiki is cool but being as comprehensive as it is, it doesn't draw attention to problems people are likely to have.
January 22, 2014, 12:46:09 PM
It's funny. This performance is still far higher than that of banks, yet the bitching.
Nobody likes uncertainty. The OP was concerned the transaction wouldn't happen and his coins would disappear. Education, education, education.
January 22, 2014, 12:11:48 PM
It's funny. This performance is still far higher than that of banks, yet the bitching.
January 22, 2014, 11:29:59 AM
Its not like 0.05 BTC is not a significant amount. Its right it should be delayed. If miners don't get rewarded "something" for $50 transactions, bitcoin won't work as intended going forward.
January 22, 2014, 10:44:59 AM
By the way, it is this transaction.
b4f02e34a2c5349930f92474e57a83670dec05b497ba08c09f982f511a96ab9c
I do not understand why there is a problem.
In the wiki it says.
A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met:
It is smaller than 10,000 bytes.
All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)
All the criteria are met.
b4f02e34a2c5349930f92474e57a83670dec05b497ba08c09f982f511a96ab9c
I do not understand why there is a problem.
In the wiki it says.
A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met:
It is smaller than 10,000 bytes.
All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)
All the criteria are met.
And as others have said, definitely use the testnet that way if you make a mistake it doesn't really matter. But do give it some time, it shows it in the queue here:
https://blockchain.info/tx/b4f02e34a2c5349930f92474e57a83670dec05b497ba08c09f982f511a96ab9c
:-)
January 22, 2014, 10:28:05 AM
By the way, it is this transaction.
b4f02e34a2c5349930f92474e57a83670dec05b497ba08c09f982f511a96ab9c
I do not understand why there is a problem.
In the wiki it says.
A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met:
It is smaller than 10,000 bytes.
All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)
All the criteria are met.
b4f02e34a2c5349930f92474e57a83670dec05b497ba08c09f982f511a96ab9c
I do not understand why there is a problem.
In the wiki it says.
A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met:
It is smaller than 10,000 bytes.
All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)
All the criteria are met.
No, the priority is very very low
This^
Your transaction's priority is
(5000000 * 123)/223 =2757847.53363
5000000 is 0.05 BTC
123 is total confirmations of input transaction.
223 is your transaction size
As per wiki
Quote
Transactions need to have a priority above 57,600,000 to avoid the enforced limit
Just wait for some time, it will get confirmed.
January 22, 2014, 10:08:01 AM
I believe he was joking about getting them to do a double spend.
And the priority - the last thing on your list - was low, fyi.
Yes indeed. Zero fee transactions don't tend to have large priority
January 22, 2014, 09:03:16 AM
I believe he was joking about getting them to do a double spend.
The comment was satirical, but if you get them to mine it...it'll be mined. So call Ghash.io and offer 45 goats, 3 pounds of sugar, and your first born child to mine the TX...they have a bit of hash power, I understand.
January 22, 2014, 08:50:56 AM
I believe he was joking about getting them to do a double spend.
And the priority - the last thing on your list - was low, fyi.
January 22, 2014, 08:42:43 AM
January 22, 2014, 08:28:52 AM
Just pay off Ghash.io
January 22, 2014, 08:25:42 AM
By the way, it is this transaction.
b4f02e34a2c5349930f92474e57a83670dec05b497ba08c09f982f511a96ab9c
I do not understand why there is a problem.
In the wiki it says.
A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met:
It is smaller than 10,000 bytes.
All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)
All the criteria are met.
b4f02e34a2c5349930f92474e57a83670dec05b497ba08c09f982f511a96ab9c
I do not understand why there is a problem.
In the wiki it says.
A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met:
It is smaller than 10,000 bytes.
All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)
All the criteria are met.
No, the priority is very very low
January 22, 2014, 05:50:12 AM
By the way, it is this transaction.
b4f02e34a2c5349930f92474e57a83670dec05b497ba08c09f982f511a96ab9c
I do not understand why there is a problem.
In the wiki it says.
A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met:
It is smaller than 10,000 bytes.
All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)
All the criteria are met.
b4f02e34a2c5349930f92474e57a83670dec05b497ba08c09f982f511a96ab9c
I do not understand why there is a problem.
In the wiki it says.
A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met:
It is smaller than 10,000 bytes.
All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)
All the criteria are met.
It will eventually be included in a block. You can see its cue position by searching for the txid b4f02e34a2c5349930f92474e57a83670dec05b497ba08c09f982f511a96ab9c
at blockchain.info.
https://blockchain.info/tx/b4f02e34a2c5349930f92474e57a83670dec05b497ba08c09f982f511a96ab9c
January 22, 2014, 04:33:40 AM
http://bitcoinfees.com/
This site will explain fees to you a bit better. Some info may be slightly outdated and also Bitcoin-QT 0.9 when released will throw it right off, but you will get a better general understanding.
This site will explain fees to you a bit better. Some info may be slightly outdated and also Bitcoin-QT 0.9 when released will throw it right off, but you will get a better general understanding.
January 22, 2014, 12:19:05 AM
By the way, it is this transaction.
b4f02e34a2c5349930f92474e57a83670dec05b497ba08c09f982f511a96ab9c
I do not understand why there is a problem.
In the wiki it says.
A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met:
It is smaller than 10,000 bytes.
All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)
All the criteria are met.
b4f02e34a2c5349930f92474e57a83670dec05b497ba08c09f982f511a96ab9c
I do not understand why there is a problem.
In the wiki it says.
A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met:
It is smaller than 10,000 bytes.
All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)
All the criteria are met.
But it doesn't tell you when it will arrive does it ....
January 22, 2014, 12:18:31 AM
The thing is, I thought sending 0.05 BTC would be such a large amount that I do not have to spend Tx fees.
But it seems that not only spending but also sending to a multi-sig wallet increases the transaction size and makes tx fees necessary.
But it seems that not only spending but also sending to a multi-sig wallet increases the transaction size and makes tx fees necessary.
Why are you trying to get out of paying fees? Do you believe miners should not be compensated for the time and cpu to verify and find blocks to include your transaction?
Raw transactions can really screw up your bitcoins if you have no clue what you are doing. You can try to recover the tx by doing -reindex on startup of the bitcoin-qt. You should have done this in the testnet where it is safe you can experiment I use the testnet all the time!
to be honest I dislike the fees because I like round numbers. Just aestetics you know. Maybe stupid, but I am sure a lot of people feel this way. Also it is always annoying to count the decimal points to make sure I am sending not too much but also not too few coins. The old discussion about mBTC vs. BTC.
"I dislike fees because I like round numbers" That's one of the weirdest statements I've ever read on this forum
January 22, 2014, 12:08:10 AM
By the way, it is this transaction.
b4f02e34a2c5349930f92474e57a83670dec05b497ba08c09f982f511a96ab9c
I do not understand why there is a problem.
In the wiki it says.
A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met:
It is smaller than 10,000 bytes.
All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)
All the criteria are met.
b4f02e34a2c5349930f92474e57a83670dec05b497ba08c09f982f511a96ab9c
I do not understand why there is a problem.
In the wiki it says.
A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met:
It is smaller than 10,000 bytes.
All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)
All the criteria are met.
January 22, 2014, 12:01:30 AM
The thing is, I thought sending 0.05 BTC would be such a large amount that I do not have to spend Tx fees.
But it seems that not only spending but also sending to a multi-sig wallet increases the transaction size and makes tx fees necessary.
But it seems that not only spending but also sending to a multi-sig wallet increases the transaction size and makes tx fees necessary.
Why are you trying to get out of paying fees? Do you believe miners should not be compensated for the time and cpu to verify and find blocks to include your transaction?
Raw transactions can really screw up your bitcoins if you have no clue what you are doing. You can try to recover the tx by doing -reindex on startup of the bitcoin-qt. You should have done this in the testnet where it is safe you can experiment I use the testnet all the time!
to be honest I dislike the fees because I like round numbers. Just aestetics you know. Maybe stupid, but I am sure a lot of people feel this way. Also it is always annoying to count the decimal points to make sure I am sending not too much but also not too few coins. The old discussion about mBTC vs. BTC.
January 21, 2014, 11:26:09 PM
Hi all,
I was redoing the multisig-transaction example of Gavin Andresen.
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071/raw/1f6cfa4208bc82ee5039876b4f065a705ce64df7/TwoOfThree.sh
I did not include any transaction costs when I entered the commands which define the "funding"-transaction, i.e. the transaction that "loads" the multi-signature address. Yet sendrawtransaction went through. I created, signed and sent the transaction hours ago (there was a complete: true)
Now my money is somehow in the limbo. My QTwallet tells me that the BTC have left, but since the transaction is unconfirmed the BTC have not entered the multisig-address yet. Do you think that the money will still arrive? Or is it lost?
It is "just" BTC 0.05. No drama, but still pretty annoying.
I was redoing the multisig-transaction example of Gavin Andresen.
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071/raw/1f6cfa4208bc82ee5039876b4f065a705ce64df7/TwoOfThree.sh
I did not include any transaction costs when I entered the commands which define the "funding"-transaction, i.e. the transaction that "loads" the multi-signature address. Yet sendrawtransaction went through. I created, signed and sent the transaction hours ago (there was a complete: true)
Now my money is somehow in the limbo. My QTwallet tells me that the BTC have left, but since the transaction is unconfirmed the BTC have not entered the multisig-address yet. Do you think that the money will still arrive? Or is it lost?
It is "just" BTC 0.05. No drama, but still pretty annoying.
its a bit early to panic about the coinage disappearing - give it some time. Its only been a few hours right?
January 21, 2014, 09:32:01 PM
The thing is, I thought sending 0.05 BTC would be such a large amount that I do not have to spend Tx fees.
But it seems that not only spending but also sending to a multi-sig wallet increases the transaction size and makes tx fees necessary.
But it seems that not only spending but also sending to a multi-sig wallet increases the transaction size and makes tx fees necessary.
Why are you trying to get out of paying fees? Do you believe miners should not be compensated for the time and cpu to verify and find blocks to include your transaction?
Raw transactions can really screw up your bitcoins if you have no clue what you are doing. You can try to recover the tx by doing -reindex on startup of the bitcoin-qt. You should have done this in the testnet where it is safe you can experiment I use the testnet all the time!
January 21, 2014, 09:28:56 PM
The thing is, I thought sending 0.05 BTC would be such a large amount that I do not have to spend Tx fees.
But it seems that not only spending but also sending to a multi-sig wallet increases the transaction size and makes tx fees necessary.
But it seems that not only spending but also sending to a multi-sig wallet increases the transaction size and makes tx fees necessary.
January 21, 2014, 09:14:22 PM
Hi all,
I was redoing the multisig-transaction example of Gavin Andresen.
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071/raw/1f6cfa4208bc82ee5039876b4f065a705ce64df7/TwoOfThree.sh
I did not include any transaction costs when I entered the commands which define the "funding"-transaction, i.e. the transaction that "loads" the multi-signature address. Yet sendrawtransaction went through. I created, signed and sent the transaction hours ago (there was a complete: true)
Now my money is somehow in the limbo. My QTwallet tells me that the BTC have left, but since the transaction is unconfirmed the BTC have not entered the multisig-address yet. Do you think that the money will still arrive? Or is it lost?
It is "just" BTC 0.05. No drama, but still pretty annoying.
I was redoing the multisig-transaction example of Gavin Andresen.
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071/raw/1f6cfa4208bc82ee5039876b4f065a705ce64df7/TwoOfThree.sh
I did not include any transaction costs when I entered the commands which define the "funding"-transaction, i.e. the transaction that "loads" the multi-signature address. Yet sendrawtransaction went through. I created, signed and sent the transaction hours ago (there was a complete: true)
Now my money is somehow in the limbo. My QTwallet tells me that the BTC have left, but since the transaction is unconfirmed the BTC have not entered the multisig-address yet. Do you think that the money will still arrive? Or is it lost?
It is "just" BTC 0.05. No drama, but still pretty annoying.
Jump to: