Topic: Transaction not confirming (Read 883 times)

There's also btcd, bitcore (note: not Bitcoin Core but bitpay's thing), bitcoinj. There a list of all full node implementations floating around here somewhere.

Let me list a few...

• Bitcoin Knots
• Bitcoin Unlimited
• Bitcoin Classic
• Bitcoin XT

All full nodes. None of them are Core. None of them require that Core be installed.


Nope, but if it barks and wags its tail its still a dog no matter how many times you try to call it a duck.


And you as well.


Coindesk?  No thinks.  I prefer actual journalism to that cesspool of propaganda.


Hopefully.

Just about every single full-client that isn't core requires that core be installed to do the actual blockchain stuff.

Yes, it is standard.

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and walks like a duck I guess you want just want to call it a bird.

Have a nice day.

Oh - and read http://www.coindesk.com/2016-the-year-that-wasnt-bitcoin/ - it's people like you that want to argue every pedantic point that are the problem.

/finished

Then don't.  Take the time to learn, and understand instead.


Nothing I can do about that.


They shouldn't.  And if they'd take the time to learn, they wouldn't.  I do what I can to help people understand that there is NOTHING STANDARD about Bitcoin Core.  I can't help it if people continue to spread false information and refuse to accept the truth, but I'll do what I can to correct them when they make the mistake.


I understand your frustration, but it's not like the client didn't warn you about what was going to happen.  There's only so much the client can do.  If it popped up a warning, and then you clicked continue, would you complain that it shouldn't have let you continue, or that it should have asked if you "really and truly" wanted to do that?  The Bitcoin Core client is intended for people that understand the consequences of what they do.  It isn't designed to hold your hand for you, and it isn't designed to be the most user friendly interface.  Far more effort goes into making sure that transaction and block verification and relay work as perfectly as possible.  If you want a friendlier interface, don't use Core.  Like I said, there's nothing "standard" about it.


And then users would complain about the UX, since they were already warned that it would take "up to 25 blocks" and they chose that setting anyway, they'll complain that the interface is constantly nagging them about what they've intentionally chosen to do based on information they've already been given.  Can't satisfy everyone.


When it comes to making sure others that read this thread understand that Core is not "official" or "standard", I'm more than willing to get into a pedantic fight with an arrogant know it all.  It's because others aren't that so many people misunderstand.

I'm not looking for a fight.

I'm sick, damnit.

UX is User Experience.

User Experience means reducing how many times the user ends up doing something the user wants to to do.

You can quibble all day about whether or not it is technically "standard" but I don't give a rats ass. When someone says standard, they mean core, and you damn well know it.

Yes - the mistake was technically a user mistake. I clicked send with too small a transaction. But yes, it is a UX problem because what happened was not the expected behaviour a user typically wants when they make a payment.

The problem is easily solved by looking at the last five blocks and calculating the current going rate based on them and warning the user if the fee is below the going rate. That would create a better user experience.

You can argue I picked the client but its the only full client that works well in CentOS. Armory builds but does not run, and I won't debug it for the devs, I'd have to learn their code first. I believe the armory problem is because they believe certain python modules have features that technically are optional and not always there, and they assume they are there and don't check for them, but that's for the armory devs.

Bitcoin Core has a UX problem.

That's all I wanted to express and I'm not in a mood for a pedantic fight with an arrogant know it all.

"The devs"?  Which devs?  Perhaps it's just Bitcoin Core that "has a problem".  Bitcoin will exist just fine without Bitcoin Core.  Like I said, there is nothing "official" or "standard" about it.
There are several clients that are ALL descendant of the client Satoshi wrote. I even have one that pops up a warning about the fee if confirmation is expected to take more than 6 blocks.

You've picked one implementation and then decided that all of bitcoin is doomed because you don't like the implementation that you chose.  Seems a bit arrogant to me. If you don't like the way that Bitcoin Core works, then choose a different client.  If you don't like the way any of the clients work, then write one yourself, or pay someone to write one for you.  If you don't want to do that, then just stop using bitcoin until someone writes a client that you like.  Bitcoin is a voluntary experimental system. You don't have to use it if you don't want to.

Credit cards do not "confirm" quickly.  Credit cards take longer to confirm than bitcoin transactions.  The fact that a merchant is willing to give you your goods even though the credit card transaction hasn't confirmed yet, just means that the merchant thinks it's worth the risk to get your business.  The merchant could do the same with the bitcoin transaction if they thought that it was worth the risk.  If you don't like the way a merchant is doing business, blame the merchant, not the payment system.

It use a user experience problem, not a user problem, and if the devs are too arrogant to acknowledge that then bitcoin has a problem.

When most people make a payment online, they expect it to be confirmed quickly. That is the way credit cards work. They pay and they get their goods.

Having a slider isn't a bad idea, but there should be a warning if the transaction fee will cause delay in the TX getting confirmed.

-=-

As far as it not being the "standard" client, I've never been one who has taken pleasure in semantic arguments and I do not generally like people who like to get caught up in semantics.

It is the client that is descendant of the client Satoshi wrote and the client distributed by bitcoin.org so yes, it is the standard client.

Have a nice day.

It looks like your transaction is already confirmed. That being said...

First of all, there is no "standard client".  I assume you're talking about Bitcoin Core.  There is no official organization in charge of bitcoin that has declared Bitcoin Core to the "official" or "standard".  It's just one of many implementations of the protocol.  It is the currently the most popular full node implementation, but popularity isn't necessarily a good indicator of quality, and it doesn't make it a "standard".

Secondly, I think you meant to say this is a "user problem", not a "UX problem".

The user interface on Bitcoin Core clearly states that if you use "normal" confirmation time, it will take many blocks before your transaction is confirmed.  It estimates that at 25 blocks (that's a bit more than 4 hours on average):


And finally, if you start up Bitcoin Core and then send a transaction too soon, then the software won't have time to analyze the network and determine the best fee recommendation.  It is better to leave it running for at least a few blocks before sending so it can make a better fee recommendation.

Normally I manually increase it. I'm sick right now and not thinking clearly and forgot to.

This is a UX problem though if the normal fee isn't enough, that needs to fixed.

Surely it is possible to look at the last five blocks and at least warn the user if the fee is not at least 90% of fee per byte used in last 5 blocks.

With clients that don't keep a local copy of the blockchain that may not work, but the standard bitcoin client does.

The recommended fee goes up and down depending on the number of unconfirmed transaction in the network.  And I don't think 0.13.1 change the way it is calculated (but wait for someone more experienced because I'm not entirely sure).

Check the fee slider.  You might have it set it to normal which might be not enough.

The recommended fee. I thought when using the standard client, the standard fee it adds is enough. Has the recommended fee gone up since 13.0.0?

Change what? 

I'm using the standard client, 13.0.0 - did they change it in the more recent versions that I refuse to run because they keep having python related errors in make test?

Looks to be because of the low fee.  The recommended fee per byte is 100 satoshi and that transaction is using 43 satoshi per byte fee.

According to https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ a transaction with 41-50 satoshi per byte fee may take between 10 to 480 minutes to confirm.  This estimation can change at anytime though.

https://blockchain.info/tx/a262a26b64a7efb3a5dd0ff829c3512df50580515039fa214b33e89be2f07c2b

Is there a specific reason why that transaction is not confirming or is it just bad luck?