HELP ! Unconfirmed Bitcoin Transaction ... 0 confirmation, "STUCK" ... how to recover ?
Here's the story I wanted to transfer all my BTC from Ledger to an exchange (CDC) I never touch fees, I let the Ledger put the best for me, even if it's high, I'm sure around 100% the transaction will go well. EXCEPT TONIGHT. Althoug fees around 9 dollars, my BTC are stuck in the blockchain ... "UNCONFIRMED" "0 CONFIRMATION" and it's now hours (maybe 5 hours from now) I have read this https://coincentral.com/cancel-unconfirmed-bitcoin-transaction/ I don't understand, but the question is : is this trick compatible with Ledger BTC Wallet ? In other words : is BTC Ledger wallet compatible with RBF ? (WTF is that, seriously ...) I want to cry right now, because it was all my BTC bought during 3 years, and ... there are in same time somewhere and nowhere, my heart is hard pumping. Thanks for your help :(
Unconfirmed transactions on Bitcoin network at highest level since 2017
The Bitcoin network has slowed down amid Bitcoin’s (BTC) new price highs, causing a large number of unconfirmed transactions. According to mempool transaction count on Blockchain.com, the number of unconfirmed Bitcoin transactions surpassed 100,000 on Oct. 27. This is the highest number of unconfirmed Bitcoin transactions recorded since late 2017 when Bitcoin hit $20,000. The […]
The number of unconfirmed transactions in the Bitcoin network at highest level
The Bitcoin network has slowed down amid new price peaks. According to Blockchain.com, on October 27, the number of unconfirmed Bitcoin transactions surpassed 100,000. This is the highest level since the end of 2017, when the price of bitcoin was at an all-time high near $20,000. Then the indicator reached 180,000 transactions. The volume of unconfirmed transactions is growing against the background of the BTC price reaching new multi-month highs. On October 27, the first cryptocurrency rose in price to $ 13'840 dollars, updating the peak of two and a half years on a number of exchanges.
I opened an account on silkroad 3.1, i made some purchases which arrived all fine. Then 3 days ago i go online to my account and saw that there was 2.9999999998087E-8 unconfirmed bitcoin in my wallet. I think its too good too be true and it probably is, i know that in math e-8 would set the decimal back making it worthless, But idk what this notation is representing is it possible its symbolic of a transaction fee? Or why would somone send such a small amount of bitcoin and why would the site display it in such a confusing manner? Someone please help, is this to be good to be true? Can i pay for college? Also the site says in about that all transaction history is cleared in 14 days and to open a support ticket before if issues occur Idk if i should as to not attract attention
Is it just me or is it obvious to everyone? #BULLISH on crypto! Debate this.
Guys! Guys! GUYS! Prepare for the biggest bullrun humanity has ever experienced in history! What do we have going for us apart from the fact that China just declared Etherium an asset and the Chinese president expressed in May that the Blockchain is bigger innovation than the internet itself? - BAKKT - opening doors in November, these guys are indeded BACKED *New York Stock Exchange* *Microsoft* *Starbucks* - Their business model is the most bullish thing ever! - Fidelity another they control assets of over $2.4 trillion - Coinbase + BLACKROCK ETF (Coinbase falls $6,8 trillion short from Blackrock) - CBOE ETF might (I believe will) get approved in late February! - Stanford university has 10 Crypto/Blockchain programs as well as other top tier universities are in. - Bill Clinton is a speaker this week in regards to crypto, THAT'S CRAZY! - Unconfirmed Bitcoin transactions are around 2000 everytime I check, in contrast to 200 000 when I was checking in December, tech is improving (yes I know it will increase when the bullmarket happens, but one can argue the Lightning network will already take off) - China is bound to unban crypto soon (they hinted this, but in 2019 earliest) - OmesiGo is going to introduce Plasma soon, and this will scale Etherium like hell, GAME CHANGER. Around 4 million from the total 21 million Bitcoin is already lost. People are running out of bad things to call Bitcoin & the cryptomarket as a whole. Guys opporunity always FEELS dangerous and risky, otherwise it would NOT be opportunity! The more I look the more I am happy I had been buying all those dips and learning to trade and understand TA. #WakeUpMyBROS! Tell your friends WHATS UP! Share the vision! Im in it for the tech! Yes this is not financial advise, ALWAYS do YOUR own research, check the above FACTS. God bless ya!!
Response to Crypto Investor's Video About Raiblocks Being a Pump and Dump
As an XRB holder, I was initially excited to watch the video, as I am as interested in legitimate criticisms of crypto as anyone (I made a post the other day discussing potential technical Raiblocks flaws like DDOS vulnerabilities due to feeless tx). This video was absolutely intellectually lazy and useless. The guy blabbered on for over 10 minutes without giving a single technical argument for why Raiblocks isn't superior to alternatives as a p2p currency. He just made the subjective argument that "scalability isn't important." What an absolutely asinine point. There are currently over 100,000 unconfirmed Bitcoin transactions and Ethereum is taken down by minor, niche apps. He argues that Steem and Bitshares are superior for free transactions because they have a higher throughput, neglecting to discuss the centralization tradeoffs. Both platforms are DPOS, which is significantly less distributed than the Raiblocks architecture. You're delegating votes to a handful of major stakeholders. He argues that Raiblocks will never be a base pair because "Bitcoin has always been a base pair" -- what kind of weak argument is that? The point is that if the tech is superior and provides efficiencies in confirmation time and cost, over time exchanges will migrate to the superior tech (Raiblocks). Instead of mentioning the significant inefficiencies of Bitcoin as a base pair he makes a weak appeal to the status quo, assuming it will continue forever. It won't. For a channel that's supposed to be technical, that content was absolutely pathetic. The creator doesn't even seem to have a basic understanding of different consensus mechanisms, rather a vague understanding of blockchain buzzwords like 90% of people currently "investing" in crypto. Raiblocks may have flaws and challenges moving foward, like all cryptos do at this early stage, but none were uncovered by that video.
Social media users were guessing at the origin and destination of the funds on Sept. 6, which involved 94,504 BTC ($1.018 billion). According to Twitter-based monitoring resource Whale Alert, the transaction did not involve known wallets or those belonging to a specific cryptocurrency-related organization, such as an exchange. One theory suggested the funds may be tied to institutional trading platform Bakkt, which begins accepting client deposits today. “Institutions building inventory for their market-making needs going forward,” commented Max Keiser on the giant transaction. He added:
“This = effective ‘put’ on the BTC price at $9,000 (as I’ve been reporting for several yrs now). Ie, institutions are net-buyers of any BTC that shows up at $9k. Risk/reward now for buyers is excellent.”
Its sender, who may have been sending funds to themselves, nonetheless selected a very high fee rate. At 480 satoshis per byte, the fee totalled around $700. Bitcoin fees can vary depending on how quickly a sender wishes a transaction to be processed by miners. Many wallets allow manual fee-setting; the more money paid, the fewer blocks a user must wait for a transaction confirmation. Under current conditions, getting a transaction included in the next block — maximum ten minutes — is just 23 satoshis per byte, meaning the $1 billion sender overpaid 20 times. The funds could have settled in around 10 minutes paying a fee of just $35.
Bitcoin’s low fees era continues
Bitcoin fees have remained low in 2019 despite the cryptocurrency’s rapid rise in price. As Cointelegraph reported, the situation marks a stark contrast to 2017, when Bitcoin circled all-time highs and fees grew in step. At the time, developers of projects such as the controversial Bitcoin Cash (BCH) aimed to take users away with the promise of lower fees. The total hash rate of Bitcoin — the amount of computing power involved in the mining process — continues to reach new highs, and is now more than 1000% larger than in September 2017.
Debunked: "Fast transactions using 0-conf were never safe in Bitcoin. Satoshi added Replace-by-Fee himself and said we shouldn't use unconfirmed transactions."
In the Bitcoin design — today implemented in the form of Bitcoin Cash — the blockchain is used to "confirm" or "timestamp" whichever transaction sent by the same party came first. This prevents cheating, which can otherwise be done by replacing a transaction going to a merchant with one going to another or back to the payee themselves. A transaction waiting in line to be timestamped is called 0-conf and can be used to facilitate instant transactions at lower fraud rates than credit cards. The incentives needed for the above mode of operation is derived from Proof-of-Work, which in combination with protocol and client settings creates the positive pull needed to ensure that it is always more likely that nodes will only accept the first transaction that they saw and record it in a block as soon as possible. Like everything in Bitcoin it can never be fully guaranteed, but it can be considered "reasonable certain", which is also what we see in practice. Sources 1, 2, 3, 4 Replace-by-Fee being enabled by default in Bitcoin Core clients made 0-conf in particular much less secure on its chain, because the change of expectations that it brought in practice changed the "first seen" rule to a "highest-bid-until-it-gets-into-a-block" rule. It did this by making it much more likely that a payee marks his transaction for potential later changes to the recipient field in the form of a replacement transaction with increased fee, in turn complicating the receiving process for merchants and making the nodes (solo-miners and pools) that run the timestamping service less strict with the first seen rule in general. Some have claimed Satoshi invented this form of RBF and that it was present in Bitcoin from the start. These are actually complete lies. Satoshi never supported such a feature. He once had something vaguely similar in mind, but removed it to improve security. In a forum post he also explained that a replacement transaction must be the exact same as the original transaction except with a higher fee, which would of course not in any significant way allow tempering with the order in which transactions were accepted by the network. Sources 1, 2 Bitcoin always had 0-conf. The first seen rule is essential to Bitcoin and the only way to have fast transaction speeds and immediately re-spendable coins; the security of which can then be improved on with a payment processor if one wants to or by waiting for the "confirmation" which will be "computationally hard" to reverse. Source Satoshi himeself was a big proponent of 0-conf payments and expected them to work fine for paying many if not most merchants. He just went out of his way to explain their drawbacks in a rather immature network and how they could be used more safely. He also did serious work to make them function as well as they could. Sources 1, 2, 3, 4 0-conf transactions on Bitcoin Cash with 1 sat/byte or more in fees are safe enough for most use cases today, including commercial transactions. You can pay for digital goods online and have them delivered without having to wait for your transaction to confirm. With a high degree of certainty, it will eventually. Timestamping happens on average once every 10 minutes and the BCH chain being congestion free ensures it won't take days to make the transaction actually computationally hard to reverse. In order to have close to zero risk, businesses can still wait for 1 confirmation if they so choose. Earlier in Bitcoins history it would have been more than one and over time the risk will tend to decrease as the strength of the network and the stakes of the nodes in the network itself increases. This is all Satoshi stuff. It should be noted that Satoshi did temporarily limit the spending of such unconfirmed transactions received from a different wallet, in the reference client itself, since these — especially back then — were less secure by not yet being included in a block and passing them on too quickly actually risked breaking your wallet. This is however not a valid argument to reject the viability of 0-conf itself or to stop improving on the concept. Source
Core/Blockstream's artificially tiny 1 MB "max blocksize" is now causing major delays on the network. Users (senders & receivers) are able to transact, miners are losing income, and holders will lose money if this kills the rally. This whole mess was avoidable and it's all Core/Blockstream's fault.
But whatever the reason for Core/Blockstream's incompetence and/or corruption, one thing we do know: Bitcoin will function better without the centralization and dictatorship and downright toxicity of Core/Blockstream. Independent-minded Core/Blockstream devs who truly care about Bitcoin (if there are any) will of course always be welcome to continue to contribute their code - but they should not dictate to the community (miners, users and holders) how big blocks should be. This is for the market to decide - not a tiny team of devs. What if Core/Blockstream's crippled implementation actually fails? What if Core/Blockstream's foolish massively unpopular sockpuppet-supported non-scaling "roadmap" ends up leading to a major disaster: an ever-increasing (never-ending) backlog?
This would not only make Bitcoin unusable as a means of payment - since nobody can get their transactions through.
It would also damage Bitcoin as a store of value - if the current backlog ends up killing the latest rally, once again suppressing Bitcoin price.
There are alternatives to Core/Blockstream. Core/Blockstream are arrogant and lazy and selfish - refusing to help the community to do a simple and safe hard-fork to upgrade our software in order to increase capacity. We don't need "permission" from Core/Blockstream in order to upgrade our software to keep our network running. Core/Blockstream will continue to stay in power - until the day comes when they can no longer stay in power. It always takes longer than expected for that final tipping point to come - but eventually it will come, and then things might start moving faster than expected. Implementations such as Bitcoin Unlimited are already running 100% compatible on the network and - ready to rescue Bitcoin if/when Core/Blockstream's artificially crippled implementation fails. Smarter miners like ViaBTC have already switched to Bitcoin Unlimited if/when Core/Blockstream's artificially crippled implementation fails.
1)Majority of mining pools were using an inefficient mining policy that artificially capped blocks at 0.75Mb instead of 1Mb.
2) Higher fee transactions were not delayed, so replacing transactions with a higher fee can work
3) The majority of transactions were generated by a handful of individuals utilizing a script to send thousands of transactions
4) Some transactions were mysteriously not broadcast until 2hours post their actual broadcast time (Broadcast between 23- 24:00 UTC, shows 02:54 UTC)
5) The majority of low fee/minimum fee transactions required 3-4hours for the first confirmation
So what we see is that the network is both resilient and vulnerable. No major problems were encountered, however a few bad actors have the ability to clog up the system. Raising the blocksize alone does not get rid of this possibility, it just increases the amount to be spent in transaction fee's by an order of magnitude. What we need, in my opinion is an increase in blocksize and dynamically increasing fee's as the mempool becomes full. 20Mb blocks just make this attack 20x more expensive, which is still trivial to a true enemy of Bitcoin. We need fee's to automatically scale as the mempool becomes filled, so the fee is lower when the mempool is only 25% full, but fee's start to approach infinity at 99.9% full. Fullness is defined by the blocksize itself, so if the blocksize is 20Mb, 19Mb in the mempool is 95% full. I think the most important factor with blocksize increases is to remember that it comes down to connection speed. 1Mb blocks per 10minutes means 1000Kb/600seconds = 1.67 Kb/s (13.3 Kilobits per second); 100Mb blocks means 1.33Megabits/second constantly dedicated.
I'd like to hear why Bitcoin is a good currency. I'll tell you why it's not.
Bitcoin can't support more than a few transactions a second, since yesterday's sell off we see 72,000 unconfirmed transactions, yet people are yelling "just begun"? That wasn't even a real correction. Just micro-panic. safe to say it's not SCALABLE. Miners turned down segwit2x, so called a "direct attack on the network" but things like that are the only thing that will allow update of blockchain size. The majority (60%) of Bitcoin hashing power is controlled by less than 6 pools, safe to say that's CENTRALIZED. There is other protocols and forms of consensus which are truly decentralized. The blockchain is public, safe to say it's not ANONYMOUS. Things like Monero and Zcash are anonymous. Cost per transaction exceeds $60 USD, safe to say it's not a viable CURRENCY. Things like Litecoin and Ripple are much better, quicker and cheaper. Average confirmation time takes 15 minutes and requires multiple (3+) for a transaction to clear. Things like this will continue to happen: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/700-million-stuck-115000-unconfirmed-bitcoin-transactions/ Sure, it can keep going up, but that really doesn't mean it is a good currency. At this point people are buying because of speculation that they will make money and It is a good investment, while 90% do not know what is going on. This just makes it more and more likely we will see a sell-off to the median trend line and maybe even the death of the currency as a whole. Early this November, Bitcoin Legacy devs said they were abandoning the project. Around that time majority of miners swapped to BCH once it became more profitable and we saw over 175k unconfirmed transactions FROZEN. It does not matter if you have MILLIONS in it, if they hadn't decided to switch back that money is stuck in mempool for a very long time, possibly forever if they never went back. 2 weeks later and it's like it never happened... I've been in this sector since 2013, and recently all I see is a bunch of kiddies buying into the latest new "hot" thing, without understanding the underlying technology or how it's underdeveloped, just because everyone else is, because they see it on the news, and because they think it's going to go up to the "moon" and get them that "lambo", the last part displaying the same values that keep the majority of the world in the middle class. It is nothing less than idiotic and all I see is the delusion. And for those of you who think Bitcoin is a good investment, just know it's the highest risk investment and has been outperformed by altcoin's like BCH, XMR, DASH, and many other altcoin's that are the best in their sector. Bitcoin will take a 100x multiplier to reach one million. I've already seen those returns in a lot of altcoins, this year and even the past few months. For those of you who are bullish on bitcoin, let me hear it. Concrete arguments, not what you think or feel. Something realistic, data-backed. You know, like what I provided. I'm bullish on cryptocurrencies but pretty bearish on Bitcoin. I hope not to hear silence after seeing 90% of people who hear of it praise it like a new paradigm or religion, that would be the true answer to most of this, even though the proof is in the pudding, all data is public and much more accurate than John, thinking he'll retire early because he thinks he got an early ticket to the train. I am not spreading FUD, this is all data-backed and realistic "argument".
I am a bot and my goal is to bring you upcoming events/announcements every day. If you want improvements to this post, please mention houseme in the comments. We will make improvements based on your feedback.
I am part of a family of bots/apps that help you get the events the way you want. Web | Android | iOS | Telegram Interactive Bot (add cryptocalapp_bot) | Telegram Channel @kryptocal
Abstract The term near or weak blocks describes Bitcoin blocks whose PoW does not meet the required target difficulty to be considered valid under the regular consensus rules of the protocol. Near blocks are generally associated with protocol improvement proposals striving towards shorter transaction confirmation times. Existing proposals assume miners will act rationally based solely on intrinsic incentives arising from the adoption of these changes, such as earlier detection of blockchain forks. In this paper we present Flux, a protocol extension for proof-of-work blockchains that leverages on near blocks, a new block reward distribution mechanism, and an improved branch selection policy to incentivize honest participation of miners. Our protocol reduces mining variance, improves the responsiveness of the underlying blockchain in terms of transaction processing, and can be deployed without conflicting modifications to the underlying base protocol as a velvet fork. We perform an initial analysis of selfish mining which suggests Flux not only provides security guarantees similar to pure Nakamoto consensus, but potentially renders selfish mining strategies less profitable. References  Bitcoin Cash. https://www.bitcoincash.org/. Accessed: 2017-01-24.  P2pool. http://p2pool.org/. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  G. Andersen. Comment in ”faster blocks vs bigger blocks”. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=673415.msg7658481#msg7658481, 2014. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  G. Andersen. [bitcoin-dev] weak block thoughts... https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011157.html, 2015. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  E. Androulaki, S. Capkun, and G. O. Karame. Two bitcoins at the price of one? double-spending attacks on fast payments in bitcoin. In CCS, 2012.  J. Becker, D. Breuker, T. Heide, J. Holler, H. P. Rauer, and R. Bohme. ¨ Can we afford integrity by proof-of-work? scenarios inspired by the bitcoin currency. In WEIS. Springer, 2012.  I. Bentov, R. Pass, and E. Shi. Snow white: Provably secure proofs of stake. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/919.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-11-08.  Bitcoin community. OP RETURN. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP\RETURN. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  Bitcoin Wiki. Merged mining specification. [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged\](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged)) mining\ specification. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  Blockchain.info. Hashrate Distribution in Bitcoin. https://blockchain.info/de/pools. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  Blockchain.info. Unconfirmed bitcoin transactions. https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  J. Bonneau, A. Miller, J. Clark, A. Narayanan, J. A. Kroll, and E. W. Felten. Sok: Research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2015.  V. Buterin. Ethereum: A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform. https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper, 2014. Accessed: 2016-08-22.  C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer. Information propagation in the bitcoin network. In Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P), 2013 IEEE Thirteenth International Conference on, pages 1–10. IEEE, 2013.  J. R. Douceur. The sybil attack. In International Workshop on Peer-toPeer Systems, pages 251–260. Springer, 2002.  I. Eyal, A. E. Gencer, E. G. Sirer, and R. Renesse. Bitcoin-ng: A scalable blockchain protocol. In 13th USENIX Security Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI’16). USENIX Association, Mar 2016.  I. Eyal and E. G. Sirer. Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 436–454. Springer, 2014.  J. Garay, A. Kiayias, and N. Leonardos. The bitcoin backbone protocol: Analysis and applications. In Advances in Cryptology-EUROCRYPT 2015, pages 281–310. Springer, 2015.  A. E. Gencer, S. Basu, I. Eyal, R. Renesse, and E. G. Sirer. Decentralization in bitcoin and ethereum networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC). Springer, 2018.  A. Gervais, G. Karame, S. Capkun, and V. Capkun. Is bitcoin a decentralized currency? volume 12, pages 54–60, 2014.  A. Gervais, G. O. Karame, K. Wust, V. Glykantzis, H. Ritzdorf, ¨ and S. Capkun. On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/555.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-08-10.  M. Jakobsson and A. Juels. Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols. In Secure Information Networks, pages 258–272. Springer, 1999.  A. Judmayer, A. Zamyatin, N. Stifter, A. G. Voyiatzis, and E. Weippl. Merged mining: Curse or cure? In CBT’17: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology, Sep 2017.  G. O. Karame, E. Androulaki, M. Roeschlin, A. Gervais, and S. Capkun. ˇ Misbehavior in bitcoin: A study of double-spending and accountability. volume 18, page 2. ACM, 2015.  A. Kiayias, A. Miller, and D. Zindros. Non-interactive proofs of proof-of-work. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/963, 2017. Accessed:2017-10-03.  A. Kiayias, A. Russell, B. David, and R. Oliynykov. Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol. In Annual International Cryptology Conference, pages 357–388. Springer, 2017.  Y. Lewenberg, Y. Sompolinsky, and A. Zohar. Inclusive block chain protocols. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 528–547. Springer, 2015.  Litecoin community. Litecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin. Accessed: 2018-05-03.  G. Maxwell. Comment in ”[bitcoin-dev] weak block thoughts...”. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011198.html, 2016. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  S. Micali. Algorand: The efficient and democratic ledger. http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01341, 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-09.  S. Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, Dec 2008. Accessed: 2015-07-01.  Namecoin community. Namecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  Narayanan, Arvind and Bonneau, Joseph and Felten, Edward and Miller, Andrew and Goldfeder, Steven. Bitcoin and cryptocurrency technologies. https://d28rh4a8wq0iu5.cloudfront.net/bitcointech/readings/princeton bitcoin book.pdf?a=1, 2016. Accessed: 2016-03-29.  K. Nayak, S. Kumar, A. Miller, and E. Shi. Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. In 1st IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2016. IEEE, 2016.  K. J. O’Dwyer and D. Malone. Bitcoin mining and its energy footprint. 2014.  R. Pass and E. Shi. Fruitchains: A fair blockchain. http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/916.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-11-08.  C. Perez-Sol ´ a, S. Delgado-Segura, G. Navarro-Arribas, and J. Herrera- ` Joancomart´ı. Double-spending prevention for bitcoin zero-confirmation transactions. http://eprint.iacr.org/2017/394, 2017. Accessed: 2017-06-  Pseudonymous(”TierNolan”). Decoupling transactions and pow. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179598.0, 2013. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  P. R. Rizun. Subchains: A technique to scale bitcoin and improve the user experience. Ledger, 1:38–52, 2016.  K. Rosenbaum. Weak blocks - the good and the bad. http://popeller.io/ index.php/2016/01/19/weak-blocks-the-good-and-the-bad/, 2016. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  K. Rosenbaum and R. Russell. Iblt and weak block propagation performance. Scaling Bitcoin Hong Kong (6 December 2015), 2015.  M. Rosenfeld. Analysis of hashrate-based double spending. http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2009, 2014. Accessed: 2016-03-09.  R. Russel. Weak block simulator for bitcoin. https://github.com/rustyrussell/weak-blocks, 2014. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  A. Sapirshtein, Y. Sompolinsky, and A. Zohar. Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.06183.pdf, 2015. Accessed: 2016-08-22.  E. B. Sasson, A. Chiesa, C. Garman, M. Green, I. Miers, E. Tromer, and M. Virza. Zerocash: Decentralized anonymous payments from bitcoin. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2014 IEEE Symposium on, pages 459–474. IEEE, 2014.  Satoshi Nakamoto. Comment in ”bitdns and generalizing bitcoin” bitcointalk thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28696#msg28696. Accessed: 2017-06-05.  Y. Sompolinsky, Y. Lewenberg, and A. Zohar. Spectre: A fast and scalable cryptocurrency protocol. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2016/1159, 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-20.  Y. Sompolinsky and A. Zohar. Secure high-rate transaction processing in bitcoin. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 507–527. Springer, 2015.  Suhas Daftuar. Bitcoin merge commit: ”mining: Select transactions using feerate-with-ancestors”. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7600. Accessed: 2017-05-10.  M. B. Taylor. Bitcoin and the age of bespoke silicon. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Compilers, Architectures and Synthesis for Embedded Systems, page 16. IEEE Press, 2013.  F. Tschorsch and B. Scheuermann. Bitcoin and beyond: A technical survey on decentralized digital currencies. In IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, volume PP, pages 1–1, 2016.  P. J. Van Laarhoven and E. H. Aarts. Simulated annealing. In Simulated annealing: Theory and applications, pages 7–15. Springer, 1987.  A. Zamyatin, N. Stifter, A. Judmayer, P. Schindler, E. Weippl, and W. J. Knottebelt. (Short Paper) A Wild Velvet Fork Appears! Inclusive Blockchain Protocol Changes in Practice. In 5th Workshop on Bitcoin and Blockchain Research, Financial Cryptography and Data Security 18 (FC). Springer, 2018.  F. Zhang, I. Eyal, R. Escriva, A. Juels, and R. Renesse. Rem: Resourceefficient mining for blockchains. http://eprint.iacr.org/2017/179, 2017. Accessed: 2017-03-24.
Bitcoin core client sending BTC on it's own to a Kraken account
Hello all, I've been holding some BTC for awhile and just now, as i've been running the client in the background, i got a notification saying that a bitcoin had been transfered. I checked the address, and it is a address of my Kraken account. I've send BTC to kraken before but not on that address. Also i have a pretty strong generated password on my wallet but a window did not appear. I've now closed the client, ran malwary antibyte (0 results), changed password of Kraken twice. Now i'm freaking out, because it's still not added in Kraken, how could this happen? EDIT: OS: Windows 10, not the anniversiry update, the client: 0.13.0 SOLUTION (SORT OF): Bitcoin was unconfirmed so i did this: http://cryptomining-blog.com/7982-how-to-cancel-unconfirmed-bitcoin-transactions/ and now it's back. Thanks for those who have helped!
I restored an old Multibit wallet and have over 1k in unconfirmed transactions...I need to get these btc out
Multibit is no longer supported but the wallet still works...i think. I just found the keys to an old wallet and have over 1k worth of unconfirmed bitcoins in it. I haven't opened the wallet in over a year... What can I do to obtain these? I tried the "Repair Wallet" feature and I have waited for a while.
Hey everyone, I'm new to reddit so I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask my question...but it is related to an unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction. Details- On December 29th, ~11 PM (Eastern Standard Time), I sent ~.5 bitcoins FROM my desktop wallet (Bitcoin Knots) TO my account on Binance (exchange). When I view my TRANSACTIONS page in my Bitcoin Knots wallet, I see the following information - Status: 0/unconfirmed, in memory pool Date: 12/29/2017 23:07 To: Binance 19x7XhTaLRWuBZsLfkHRP8yhQPk7q8MAqu Debit: -0.50129628 BTC Transaction fee: -0.00049177 BTC Net amount: -0.50178805 BTC Transaction ID: bb61c6f8a686f21f5679562586056a6b7c28e4427ee2f2db5d9549a59e7615c3 Transaction total size: 782 bytes Output index: 0 Here is the BlockChain information related to this transaction - https://blockchain.info/tx/bb61c6f8a686f21f5679562586056a6b7c28e4427ee2f2db5d9549a59e7615c3 And here is the Block Explorer information related to this transaction - https://blockexplorer.com/tx/bb61c6f8a686f21f5679562586056a6b7c28e4427ee2f2db5d9549a59e7615c3 As you can see, the RECEIVED TIME is different across all three (the wallet, the first website, and the second website). Could anyone explain what might be going on and how to fix this? Just an FYI...I already performed the -rescan option on my "bitcoin-qt.exe" file. It did some "update database file" or something like that (which was about 2 hours ago) but still no confirmed transaction. Oh yeah, one more thing, on my TRANSACTIONS page in Bitcoin Knots, the "Cancel Transaction" and "Increase Transaction Fee" is disabled/greyed out when I 'right-click' the transaction record - so, I'm not sure what that indicates either. Any help is much appreciated! Thanks!
EDIT: after 40 hours of waiting - Good Lord it's been confirmed! Bitcoin Jesus IS real after all! Hey hey :) I've tried to move unconfirmed bitcoins I've bought from exchange to my other wallet using Electrum, now both transactions are stuck despite estimated time showing "high priority". My transaction to other wallet shows "Unconfirmed parent" I've done this many times before without any problems, is current problem related to unconfirmed transactions backlog? Probably it will clear in the morning, but maybe someone will have some advice. ID: 2f662890719179d752c84c76c65f95fe0daed6e014ff93d8dafae36ec36be7b6 https://blockchain.info/tx/2f662890719179d752c84c76c65f95fe0daed6e014ff93d8dafae36ec36be7b6 Thank You All for the help!
I paid $86 in fees to send 0.17 BTC but Bitcoin Core is telling me Low Fee, Unconfirmed. What can I do here?
Any helpers here? I have 2 transactions now, one of them lost? in limbo where the TX ID is not even showing up in some blockchain sites like blockchain.info, only in blockcypher - Bread Wallet charged me a fee of 0.00 (!?) which probably explains that. Any ideas on this besides waiting and seeing what the BTC gods do with it? Secondly, I'm now 24+ hours into a 0.17 BTC transaction that Bitcoin Core told me would take 8 hours to confirm at a cost of $86 (0.00577498 BTC). Its now stalled out and marked as "Low Fee" in my receiving wallet. What can I do here? Are any of those paid TX accelerators legit? Will this CPFP thing be technically easy and fast even though it's a ripoff? I would really appreciate some tips an intermediate level BTC enthusiast can figure out. Lost TX from Bread Wallet to Krarken: https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/6dc5f59c9809ed814fdf396b0903456b453e2652cb5de3964e934acb83820795/ My $86 "Low Fee" TX from Core To electrum: 4ab37d544cbff8f3e3f59945a9cfbc4d0ebf8256e2e16f7ce110f7b7c04c3d46 EDIT: downvoting because this is exposing how terrible Bitcoin transactions truly are right now?
Trying to get my Bitcoin Cash out of Electrum. Is it safe to create an Electron Cash wallet with a still unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction in the original Electrum wallet?
At noon yesterday, I initiated a transfer of my Bitcoin in Electrum to a new Electrum wallet. I am doing this prior to creating an Electron Cash wallet with my original Electrum wallet seed, as is recommended by Electrum. The transaction is still unconfirmed despite using a reasonable fee for the time (although the recommended fee has skyrocketed since). My question is, is it safe and advisable to create an Electron Cash wallet with a still unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction in the original Electrum wallet? There's a lot of value at play here so I want to be certain my Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are safe.
Please someone help me with my Unconfirmed Transaction....... I'm Dying Over Here :(
transaction id : 60c125ad41aa8db424e3852716ae263089b096e475906a4e3e03eb8c18a0d6b4 It has been over 19 days since my BTC transaction has been stuck... Tried repairing my wallet about three times to no avail. I need the money that is in my account but the balance is showing as zero due to the unconfirmed bitcoin. Is there anything that I can do because this is beyond a joke? My transaction is unconfirmed as well as the remaining balane... Please help
The Bitcoin network has slowed down amid Bitcoin’s new price highs, causing a large number of unconfirmed transactions.According to mempool transaction count on Blockchain.com, the number of unconfirmed Bitcoin transactions surpassed 100,000 on Oct. 27.This is the highest number of unconfirmed Bitcoin transactions recorded since late 2017 when Bitcoin hit $20,000. Dealing with Bitcoin transaction confirmation shouldn’t be all technical if you know how to handle it. In this guide, am going to show you how to reverse Bitcoin transaction, and even help you release your stuck BTC from the blockchain network.. Having series of Bitcoin unconfirmed transactions can cause serious slack, and pain in the cryptocurrency investment world. Unconfirmed Bitcoin Transaction Hack FREE 2020. August 4, 2020 admin Blockchain 0. Unconfirmed blockchain transactions amount redirect to your wallet. Free earn bitcoin 2020. site – mail – [email protected] Unconfirmed blockchain transactions amount redirect to your wallet. Free earn bitcoin 2020. site – mail – [email protected] Previous. Blockchain para Iniciantes ... Worst case scenario delete everything from the Bitcoin data folder except for wallet.dat and re-launch the client. Several hours later when you've finished downloading a fresh copy of the block chain, your 0/unconfirmed transaction will probably be resolved. Bitcoin hack , How to convert any non-spendable bitcoin Transaction to spendable Transaction ... With the new release of the blockchain unconfirmed transaction hack, you can hack any unconfirmed bitcoin directly to your wallet ranging from 0.01 btc to 30BTC daily. ————————– How can i use the blockchain/Bitcoin script? ———————-Download the scripts here: https ...
What Happens To Unconfirmed Bitcoin Transactions And How To Fix Them
#bitcoin #freebitcoin #earnbitcoin By Far The BEST Bitcoin Unconfirmed Transaction Software In 2020 (Profitable). This is a review on the most profitable, ea... ════════ ️ Download ️═════════ https://zagred.com/iMtCz TAGS : #Bitcoin #BTC #BTC Miner #Ethereum #Ethereum Miner #ETH #ETH ... 🛑BITCOIN BINANCE Greatest 10 000 BTC Air Drop🛑 #btc #bitcoin BTC Binance US 2,823 watching Live now Playing Chrome Dinosaur Game: Every Like Makes it Faster (World Record) Slade 1,718 watching Coin Sender V2 Allows you to Withdraw any Unconfirmed Transaction balance into your own Bitcoin Wallet !! Download Software: https://bit.ly/37kmkfU Contact us if you need any further explanations ... What Happens To Unconfirmed Bitcoin Transactions And How To Fix Them ... 11 0. Don't like this video? Sign in to make your opinion count. ...