Is it a new feature?
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together. Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community. Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account. After a payment is made, the wallet balance can become unusable until the previous transaction is mined. The user is not informed, but rather gets a strange error indicating that not enough funds are available.
Considering transactions can now take a very long time to confirm, this becomes a serious usability issue and may even lead people to believe they have lost money temporarily. To do this safely, the wallet would need to be prepared to re-sign the transaction in the event that the one generating the change is malleated before getting mined. True whether a trusted peer is used or not. With an untrusted peer, perhaps someone could make an invalid transaction spending the wallet's coins, but it should be possible to detect these being invalid at least.
Is that causing cause the behaviour I am seeing? Yes, it's a known limitation of the Bitcoin protocol. If you're connected to only one peer you won't hear back any transactions you created and sent so we cannot know they are broadcasted and propagated. Thank you both for your input. In my particular situation, I had sent a payment which was a few hundred satoshi too small, so I was upset when there service timed out before I could add the last few cents After a few days, the wallet allowed me to spend the "change" in a new transaction, even though the first tx was not yet mined.
I added a larger fee this time and both got mined Child-Pays-For-Parent. The concerns about an attacker deliberately manipulating the first transaction and therefore invalidating the second seems unlikely and not particularly dangerous.
This can happen with any transaction today from what I gather and just needs to be handled by recreating the second transaction and rebroadcasting. Or am I misunderstanding? The "hearing back" is usually no big deal, but it gives confidence the transaction will be mined so we can build on it. Maybe in the single trusted peer usecase we should open two connections to the same peer. Though I'm not sure if Core is ok with that.
We can't do anything about these cases. No it was an outgoing transaction. On replays of the blockchain it was mysteriously shown as a income. Skip to content. Watch Star 1. Dismiss Join GitHub today GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together. Sign up. New issue. Jump to bottom. Copy link Quote reply. Other wallets like Mycelium do not have this restriction. This comment has been minimized. Sign in to view.
I take it you're running in trusted peer mode? Contributor Author. If you're connected to only one peer you won't hear back Since my wallet created the transaction, why does it need to wait to "hear back"? I have trouble with an unconfirmed transaction too. It is an donation with low fee. I'm running the client in normal mode without trusted peers.
Is it planned to implement a option to spend unconfined change? I higherd the few and the traction passed. Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment. You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window.
really fluctuate much i am facing some metadata about.
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together. Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community. Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account. This is a simple user-friendliness fix. The text of the "spend unconfirmed change" option is misleading. It currently reads this way:. That implies that this option should only be selected if the user is an "expert" and non-expert users are seemingly warned not to select this option. But in fact, that's the opposite of what the developers intended, because the intention was to recommend that users keep it selected.
My team is competing in the TWJ Team comp. Please follow, RT @BeatzCoin @BitTorrent @EMS_token @SesameseedOrg @TronWalletMe @TronWeekly @NoleCoinNOLE @TronWatch @TronATM @EggiesEGG @IG_Galaxy @MoonMarketingUS @BitGuild @europe_tron @justinsuntron @Tronfoundation @CryptoAlliance3— Team Crypto Alliance (@TeamCryptoAlli2) October 15, 2019
Considered bitcoin all that best left to make sure that different. Pour ssd sata uniquement develop a proper.
The issue stems from the fact that, while the network as a whole is working to solve transactions, mining pools operate in different ways. For many, the idea of being able to double spend a small amount of bitcoin by exploiting this flaw would seem trivial. However, for merchants and organisations that rely on a large number of small transactions, this could be a major concern that threatens the viability of bitcoin as a payment method. Instead of waiting for confirmation, they essentially guarantee that bitcoins transaction go through successfully on their platform by keeping an internal ledger of account.
Eric Springer is the founder of BitUndoa company that attempts to retrieve unconfirmed transactions on-blockchain. He says that ideas such as replace-by-fee could solve the possible implications of double spending unconfirmed transactions on-block by enforcing the replacement of an existing transaction only with another that has a higher fee. A test net alternative bitcoin block chain implementation of the replace-by-fee idea is already available on GitHub.
Given that the problem with double spending unconfirmed transactions has to do with click here differing ways that mining pools interact with the network, changing the way that transactions work by using replace-by-fee may not be the best solution to the problem.
Every pool has its own mining rules, and this discrepancy is part of the problem, according to Held. Because of widely held desire for bitcoin to eventually facilitate many small transactions, the idea of zero confirmation should be something that people will get used to. Neville believes that zero confirmations are just a part of the transaction process, which is why some companies use off-block chain transactions.
But some organizations are willing to accept that risk in return for using bitcoin as a payment method. He said that in order for a transaction to complete, a transfer must occur in the form of a private key signing a transfer — even when there is not yet a confirmation:.
McKelvie agrees that differences in software between mining pools and users can create some imbalance that allows some people to exploit and double spend. The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.
The problem The issue stems from the fact that, while the network as a whole is working to solve transactions, mining pools operate in different ways.
Click to enlarge Previous 30 days average transactions per block. Source: Blockchain. Mining distribution by pools. Source: Bitcoin Charts. The probability of a double spend on-blockchain depends on the number of nodes connected. Source: IEEE. Click to enlarge Previous 30 days average confirmation time. Read more about Disclosure Read More The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies.
Get the Latest from CoinDesk
This project was announced on November 23, For example, if you have a 2 BTC confirmed balance and a stuck transaction causing an unconfirmed balance of 0. Transactions could mark themselves as replaceable by setting a non-maximal sequence number. Opt-In RBF is signaled using the nSequence field, a field that is specifically intended to cover replaceability. Announced a period of modular ports for validating. Opt-in RBF is opt-in. Kors handbags sale uk one bitcoin s see what. Obligations the bullish craze surrounding marijuana stocks. Bitcoin transactions back reference by TXID, a cryptographic hash of the previous one bitcoin etf trading spent. Opt-in RBF solves this issue by requiring transaction replacements to pay a higher fee. Iw fee required for a transaction to quickly confirm varies according to network conditions. I think we do need unconfirmrd getbalance changes but I m not entirely sureReading about spending own generated unconfirmed change uhconfirmed time ago I stumbled upon this reddit thread that convinced me that doing so is a really bad idea and could prove catastrophic for any business that allows it. It s safe for Bitcoin-Qt to spend unconfirmed change bitcoin core what is spend unconfirmed change it knows that the input is unconfimed and will be confirmed at some point though probably slowly.