It could be money laundering, though I doubt that because on-chain transactions are all public. There are no names attached to Bitcoin addresses, but you can always follow the flow of coins.
If this was deliberate then this obfuscates the history of the coins that turned into transaction fee. Doesn't really sound reasonable to me, too.
To me this looks more like a mistake of someone acting in a rush for whatever reasons because the transaction lacks a change output. And if you either don't understand that transaction inputs are always consumed completely and you don't want to send all of your inputs (minus a reasonable transaction fee) to your output(s), then you always need a change output that returns the excess of your inputs back into your wallet.
This transaction was also the final one of a small chain of CPFP transactions where the two ancestors had a bit too low transaction fee rate (64 and 119 sat/vB where the lowest fee rate of transactions in block 818087 appears to be 129 sat/vB; previous block 818086 had a fee span starting at 112 sat/vB, so 64 sat/vB is clearly way too low to start with if you want a timely confirmation). Someone got nervous or lost his mind while block 818087 took roughly 30 minutes to be mined.
Following transactions of the 55.76998378BTC combine some small amounts and peel of a bunch of 6BTC outputs which are further involved in some transactions, all with mostly optimal transaction fees.
Topic: Someone just paid 83BTC for transaction fee, - page 2. (Read 632 times)
- How's RBF related to whether that was an exchange transaction?
I was talking about centralized exchanges. Imagine a user withdraws his money to a specific address from an exchange like Binance, since the user does not have control over the funds, they won't be able to use the RBF feature, and exchanges like Binance or others are unlikely to bump fees to complete the transactions. That's the possibility I pointed.
- The pool has the right to decide what to do with the money.
True. I guess I have picked a wrong word which is "honest". I should have picked "genereous" instead. If they really want to return it to the user who lost it by mistake, they can still refund it. But, if they don't there is nothing wrong. 
To the people who believe this was done to launder money: what money are you talking about? There is no concealing of financial activity, we can all view the transaction where he pays the miner 83 BTC. I'm not into the law, but isn't this counted the same as if he had sent him 83 BTC in a regular transaction?
Not the same. Since it was a transaction fee, it is difficult to prove whether there was intent or an accidental error. Therefore, it becomes legitimately earned money for the mining pool, regardless of where the money originally came from. Much like mobsters used casinos to launder money.
To the people who believe this was done to launder money: what money are you talking about? There is no concealing of financial activity, we can all view the transaction where he pays the miner 83 BTC. I'm not into the law, but isn't this counted the same as if he had sent him 83 BTC in a regular transaction?
- The pool has the right to decide what to do with the money.
If the pool is too honest, can't they send it back to the wallet where the transaction was made? I don't think such transactions are made from any exchanges since it was an RBF transaction.
- How's RBF related to whether that was an exchange transaction? - The pool has the right to decide what to do with the money.
...Advice to newbies check properly the amount your setting as fee and make sure you are looking at the right fees estimator, use wallets that allows bumping of fees in case you set a very low one
Few people can afford such a mistake, since not many people have such a number of Bitcoins in their wallet. For this reason, it is unlikely that any beginner can lose 70 BTC, because he could only see such a figure in a dream. But, since we are dealing with finances, it is necessary to carefully execute the transaction so as not to lose your money by mistake.
The transaction was first broadcasted with a fee of 70 bitcoins and then later was replaced with that of 83 bitcoin as fees.
If this was the case, I don’t think it was a mistake. It had RBF enabled and the sender later increased the price again which makes it more likely like a FUD some people have assumed it to be. Also, could be in haste to get the bitcoin moved out from the wallet which may likely not be for the seller, could be; a case of theft, fraud or related activity.The RBF it self wasn’t enable with the transaction but it seems the mining node which is Antpool has the full RBF enable and that is why it was possible or probably it was done using CPFP which was shown by mempool.space.
Your point does not make any sense. Who is going to waste 3.1 Million dollars just to spread FUD? Isn't it a too expensive way to spread FUD? Can't you think that the owner probably was using a new wallet GUI and he confused between 83 sat/vB with 83 Bitcoin? I am afraid, I do not agree with your point because it does not make any sense.
Mistake will have been what we will consider but to some extent I still find it awkward, because after making mistake the sender still went ahead to bump the fee. Once you make this mistake your wallet balance will change drastically that you will know you made mistake but then why bump it again? This is not a new type of 'mistake' and after many times, I started to think it is not mistake at all.
Those overpaid transaction fee is like a plan from someone to fud the market. It can be used as news like Bitcoin is risky, you can lose money by mistake when broadcasting your transaction and Bitcoin blockchain is irreversible so you will not get your money back. Something like this is in my mind.
Those overpaid transaction fee is like a plan from someone to fud the market. It can be used as news like Bitcoin is risky, you can lose money by mistake when broadcasting your transaction and Bitcoin blockchain is irreversible so you will not get your money back. Something like this is in my mind.
Your point does not make any sense. Who is going to waste 3.1 Million dollars just to spread FUD? Isn't it a too expensive way to spread FUD? Can't you think that the owner probably was using a new wallet GUI and he confused between 83 sat/vB with 83 Bitcoin? I am afraid, I do not agree with your point because it does not make any sense.
There are times mining pools allow senders of those overpaid transactions to provide proof of ownership and claim those bitcoin back.
If the pool is too honest, can't they send it back to the wallet where the transaction was made? I don't think such transactions are made from any exchanges since it was an RBF transaction. In this case, did Antpool announce anything yet?
Someone with over 83 BTC isn't your everyday Joe, right? Makes you wonder, did they pull off this move while sipping something strong or maybe not in their A-game? What's the scoop? This isn't the first head-scratcher, we've seen blunders before. Even someone like me, not in the "rich club," double-checks transactions. Rich or not, it's baffling how they slip up. Let's snag a lesson from their costly mistakes. Remember, folks, don't dance the same misstep. It's an expensive lesson waiting to be learned. Stay sharp, and let's avoid turning our wallets into a crypto drama!
The current market value of 83 btc is a lot so it seems amazing to me how 83 btc can be spent only in transaction fees. Maybe there is some miscalculation. If I think about it myself no matter how rich I am I will never spend 83 btc to do my bitcoin transaction out of the question I am willing to wait my whole life if need be but never spend 83 btc to do a transaction. Where one investor dreams of owning a bitcoin how come another investor spends 83 BTC just as a transaction fee. It sounds as amazing as it is unbelievable. Currently it costs three to five dollars to make a transaction so we wait for the transaction fees to come down further how can another investor spend that much.
The transaction was first broadcasted with a fee of 70 bitcoins and then later was replaced with that of 83 bitcoin as fees.
If this was the case, I don’t think it was a mistake. It had RBF enabled and the sender later increased the price again which makes it more likely like a FUD some people have assumed it to be. Also, could be in haste to get the bitcoin moved out from the wallet which may likely not be for the seller, could be; a case of theft, fraud or related activity.
Quote
My guess is the sender was probably trying to set is fee as 70 and 83Sats/vbyte and then mistakenly set out that high fee. The block was mined by Antpool, hopefully they would treat it as mistake and return the funds.
I hope so too, many incidents like this have happened in the past and most of them are given back to the rightful owners that made such costly mistake after proving ownership of the coin. If your guess is actually correct, that means we still have more people that are not literate in bitcoin and own a large amount of bitcoins in their holdings till date.
Quote
Advice to newbies check properly the amount your setting as fee and make sure you are looking at the right fees estimator, use wallets that allows bumping of fees in case you set a very low one
If it was possible to even set a transaction fee that won’t be above the actual amount that is been sent out, cases like this would have reduced. But in a market where the amount of transactions fees determine how fast your transaction will be approved in most cases, it will not be realistic for this to happen.
38 Bitcoin I dont think this newbie account and software default usually choose the best fee that matches to mempool but this is crazy 83 Bitcoin what a crazyyyy shitt. I think he doing it on purposes but what crazy person put 83 BTc in a single transaction
It is difficult to call what happened an error since it was made twice and the owner could clearly understand what he was doing. One can only guess where he got such a large number of bitcoins that he could just spend them. There is doubt about the honesty of these funds, and the owner was probably in a hurry to complete the transactions as quickly as possible, which means one can guess that some kind of hacking or theft occurred, and the Bitcoins might not belong to the sender.
The untrue is all blocks are public on blockchain and the public ledger. You can see it on block explorers and what do you mean by 'are not visible to other miners"?
Not only other miners but many Bitcoin full nodes can see it too.
I agree that transactions are visible and not invisible to other miners. If what he meant is where the transaction is not yet broadcasted in the pool then I will believe because I tried it myself where I make a transaction and have the transaction hash but I didn't see it or no search result when I checked it on the mempool until a few minutes then you can finally see it. Anyway, if it isn't what I explained then I don't believe that it is invisible to other miners and I don't know where he get it or learn it. Not only other miners but many Bitcoin full nodes can see it too.
Is Antminer going to give that back to the person who did it? Or they are the one who did the transaction and just did it to launder that money..
Nevertheless, it also looks like money laundering, but even if it one, the fee is very high to make it obvious, unless if it is been done intentionally just to give the Bitcoin out to the miners.
Like what everyone is thinking, it's possible that they're money laundering with that amount because that's easier for them to go through have it paid to the miners. 
Mistakes! That’s the one way this sort of transactions can result, by means of error.
Good enough, we’ve got miners who are reasonable enough to understand what must have been the case and often choose not to punish the error by refunding over paid fees back to the sender address.
People have to be real calculative while making transaction’s especially in times of fee hikes as these. I guess having so much on your alley calls for a little carelessness.
Good enough, we’ve got miners who are reasonable enough to understand what must have been the case and often choose not to punish the error by refunding over paid fees back to the sender address.
People have to be real calculative while making transaction’s especially in times of fee hikes as these. I guess having so much on your alley calls for a little carelessness.
Makes ya scratch your head, dunnit? Payin' 83BTC just for the transaction fee? That's nuts. Seems like wallet apps oughta have some kinda pop-up or somethin' to keep folks from makin that kinda expensive mistake. Shouldn't be on users to catch stuff like that - they need a heads up when the fee's about to go through the roof.
As we all know the transaction fee continues to get high as the mempool remains congested for almost a month now due to reoccurring ORDI tokens on the bitcoin blockchain.
One of the main reasons for the mempool congestion is actually the Inscription/BRC-20 worthless JPEG which the holder will wish they didn't buy in the future.Although, the current congestion is different from the previous market but the mempool always experiences congestion when the halving market is coming and this is always the moment people pay ridiculous all in the name of making transaction but the miners always love it.
A transaction that was in block 818087 had actually paid a whopping sum of 83 bitcoins as the transaction fee. I would say this is a costly mistake but for someone having that huge amount of bitcoin in their possession I don’t get it. The transaction was first broadcasted with a fee of 70 bitcoins and then later was replaced with that of 83 bitcoin as fees.
Is this actually a mistake or being ignorant, even if he transaction being made is that huge, it shouldn't have occurred that one is paying this huge sum for making payments, I was shocked in the first place when i saw this, thinking that maybe it was $70 that was intended and not in btc, if this was actually true, then i also wonder how the fund in question was acquired, there's more to know about this incident.
I do not think it is a fat finger mistake, there is a huge difference in size. It is either a defective software(highly not possible if they download the official software of a known Bitcoin wallet) or just like the early reply is saying, trying to launder a certain amount by making it go through transaction fee, or some people are into a propaganda of making people trust large mining pool since these pool refund any excessive amount of transaction fee as the history of huge transaction fee error stated.
Advice to newbies check properly the amount your setting as fee and make sure you are looking at the right fees estimator, use wallets that allows bumping of fees in case you set a very low one
If from what you guess is right, then the sender is the one at fault from his mistake, we need to check ad always double check anything we are doing before making a confirmation for that.
It will never be a fault of a miner since the person who did the transaction is the sender himself. If we are using electrum, there is always a pop up and notification on how much we are paying for transaction fees so it is really very hard to think that a person will make a mistake in adjusting transaction fee unless the person is high on drugs or intoxicated, I do not know about other non-custodial wallet though.
Millions just to make a mistake? Come on.
Someone who owns that much is aware on how to adjust fees and how to make transactions. Whether we give the benefit of the doubt from this transaction and whoever has done it.
It's very unlikely that someone will assume these adjustments and fees are normal and won't take a second or third look before pressing that send to proceed for the transaction.
Someone who owns that much is aware on how to adjust fees and how to make transactions. Whether we give the benefit of the doubt from this transaction and whoever has done it.
It's very unlikely that someone will assume these adjustments and fees are normal and won't take a second or third look before pressing that send to proceed for the transaction.
Never attribute to malice something you can attribute to stupidity or incompetence.
Could someone be trying to do something wrong? Sure.
Could someone who realized they made a mistake made an even bigger one in a panic trying to fix it? More likely.
Will we find out? No, we will find out what people tell us happened or at least the released public story of what happened. Would that be the truth? Who knows.
-Dave
Could someone be trying to do something wrong? Sure.
Could someone who realized they made a mistake made an even bigger one in a panic trying to fix it? More likely.
Will we find out? No, we will find out what people tell us happened or at least the released public story of what happened. Would that be the truth? Who knows.
-Dave
Jump to: