Looks like
the issue was solved, figured due to the address' blockexplorer history.
But, anyone love to see some details? Here's some:
It appears that he had replaced this 1.182sat/vB fee rate transaction:
27b60a104906256079236fafb7d62fb37208a26458ebd2258abcffc77a3d6453with
5a624e5bcee5161217cf2d4dbe922c66b61d82d8fbc3820e2cfd4134f09d3afa that sent back the coins to his wallet, using the same address as the inputs.
Then somehow the same inputs were used the first time he tried to send to
bc1qk0fdr6cq8lt7qdlyl045nvjqmalkkzvfqs72n0.
I suspect that the fee rate is just suggested by Bitcoin core's estimation.
"inputs": [
{
"addresses": [
"17mMVesSaC6kL4F8g5bA13u5iEvWc4ytND"
],
"age": 601104,
"output_index": 0,
"output_value": 472021,
"prev_hash": "f43cbaccdf447369a4d9dd231dc087ca02b0526e00d91f0561a9544f4c90cc99",
"script": "473044022077154e42f100048dac1273bf624ed5d51abc696002fa440792eb59a9 -snip-",
"script_type": "pay-to-pubkey-hash",
"sequence": 4294967293
},
{
"addresses": [
"17mMVesSaC6kL4F8g5bA13u5iEvWc4ytND"
],
"age": 590503,
"output_index": 1,
"output_value": 678529,
"prev_hash": "b4e218497a2500b99f1f849c744143af46fe7fd61ed381d195fd4213a2e714c3",
"script": "47304402206d34e2d861ddce65adb9e676db7375fddf734f2eaa76 -snip-",
"script_type": "pay-to-pubkey-hash",
"sequence": 4294967293
},
{
"addresses": [
"17mMVesSaC6kL4F8g5bA13u5iEvWc4ytND"
],
"age": 585899,
"output_index": 0,
"output_value": 560621,
"prev_hash": "40736fe05bd2389d0a2a726a8acd747cd2c7ce84a3d98d497f247dff42dfa69d",
"script": "473044022018827c1ea7924ddc1405732d5163ac75c293ef9b1db881927f7a247916be6a -snip-",
"script_type": "pay-to-pubkey-hash",
"sequence": 4294967293
},
{
"addresses": [
"17mMVesSaC6kL4F8g5bA13u5iEvWc4ytND"
],
"age": 628291,
"output_index": 0,
"output_value": 5894754,
"prev_hash": "5148f6c2205a63c7ad768a50a32c12ef4828020fdbb6af7157947c1bcec23012",
"script": "47304402204ecb7886d6f97e8524ddeb12a318bef5eb40228beb78ac867d5d0e9df8fab8d8022 -snip-",
"script_type": "pay-to-pubkey-hash",
"sequence": 4294967293
},
{
"addresses": [
"17mMVesSaC6kL4F8g5bA13u5iEvWc4ytND"
],
"age": 601120,
"output_index": 1,
"output_value": 472544,
"prev_hash": "f945edc32db2121b857483cd8c44a10056ca7c9cb6d34dfa1d0cc51507d8afdf",
"script": "4730440220670f430fd7ac269731d3750e888b7b3736bc9ac66c613f7fb2bd79abf2cb2abe02201fb8dc3 -snip-",
"script_type": "pay-to-pubkey-hash",
"sequence": 4294967293
},
{
"addresses": [
"17mMVesSaC6kL4F8g5bA13u5iEvWc4ytND"
],
"age": 601104,
"output_index": 0,
"output_value": 431559,
"prev_hash": "cc1eb9247649a6663b3053781da61c671580f14748d070bbcbb084549d00ac91",
"script": "47304402201f9c65a8052bba8930ec5ee22d26f1e34c98228b958fd17f5cd4d008ba037130022015f2 -snip-",
"script_type": "pay-to-pubkey-hash",
"sequence": 4294967293
},
{
"addresses": [
"17mMVesSaC6kL4F8g5bA13u5iEvWc4ytND"
],
"age": 577958,
"output_index": 0,
"output_value": 2355860,
"prev_hash": "2b81fb9e1647d8b3621b82512f8fc6f66c0ea85e2e2603e7f2a315c4f36a238e",
"script": "47304402205a39f17302c16faf40acf82054655649fbd8e7d9432cf943e14486d6b19aadbb0220361a80 -snip-",
"script_type": "pay-to-pubkey-hash",
"sequence": 4294967293
}
],
"lock_time": 662285,
"opt_in_rbf": true,
"outputs": [
{
"addresses": [
"bc1qk0fdr6cq8lt7qdlyl045nvjqmalkkzvfqs72n0"
],
"script": "0014b3d2d1eb003fd7e037e4fbeb49b240df7f6b0989",
"script_type": "pay-to-witness-pubkey-hash",
"value": 10864580
}
But the next attempt used the consolidated output of the previous transaction instead, that solved the issue as seen here:
17mMVesSaC6kL4F8g5bA13u5iEvWc4ytND