Return to Question

I have a UTXO with an inscription that is now valuable, but I accidentally received it into a non-Taproot (bech32, native segwit) wallet.

I'm now aware that because of this, I can't use Ordinal theory to control which satoshis are being spent when I send this transaction.

What I'm wondering is, is there any way to dictate which UTXO the fees come from? This was accepted into a clean wallet, so it's currently the only UTXO. If I add another UTXO, would the fees come from that instead? Thus ensuring that the first UTXO is fully received by the receiver.

I'm aware of one person who was in the same situation. He sent two more UTXOs of 100k satoshis, and then paid the minimum possible fee while keeping bytes low, then pushed his transaction through the VIA btc transaction accelerator. The fee was about ~250 sats, so he had a ~250/200000 chance of failure. It went through successfully.

I'm mostly curious if there's anything else I can do to increase my odds here, and if the logic of what I was told above is sound. It seems obvious that the sats I'm sending are the same ones that are being received by the receiver, they're not mixed within blocks, and that the only risk is that my inscription happens to be attached to one of the satoshi's within the fee. I'm also curious if miners could "snipe" the inscription, but I'm assuming that's not possible as well.

I have a UTXO with an inscription that is now valuable, but I accidentally received it into a non-Taproot (bech32, native segwit) wallet.

I'm now aware that because of this, I can't use Ordinal theory to control which satoshis are being spent when I send this transaction.

What I'm wondering is, is there any way to dictate which UTXO the fees come from? This was accepted into a clean wallet, so it's currently the only UTXO. If I add another UTXO, would the fees come from that instead? Thus ensuring that the first UTXO is fully received by the receiver.

I'm aware of one person who was in the same situation. He sent two more UTXOs of 100k satoshis into the same wallet, and then paid the minimum possible fee while keeping bytes low, then pushed his transaction through the VIA btc transaction accelerator. The fee was about ~250 sats, so he had a ~250/200000 chance of failure. It went through successfully.

I'm mostly curious if there's anything else I can do to increase my odds here, and if the logic of what I was told above is sound. It seems obvious that the sats I'm sending are the same ones that are being received by the receiver, they're not mixed within blocks, and that the only risk is that my inscription happens to be attached to one of the satoshi's within the fee. I'm also curious if miners could "snipe" the inscription, but I'm assuming that's not possible as well.

I have a UTXO with an inscription that is now valuable, but I accidentally received it into a non-Taproot (bech32, native segwit) wallet.

I'm now aware that because of this, I can't use Ordinal theory to control which satoshi are being spent when I send this transaction.

What I'm wondering is, is there any way to dictate which UTXO the fees come from? This was accepted into a clean wallet, so it's currently the only UTXO. If I add another UTXO, would the fees come from that instead? Thus ensuring that the first UTXO is fully received by the receiver.

I'm aware of one person who was in the same situation. He sent two more UTXOs of 100k satoshis, and then paid the minimum possible fee while keeping bytes low, then pushed his transaction through the VIA btc transaction accelerator. The fee was about ~250 sats, so he had a ~250/200000 chance of failure. It went through successfully.

I'm mostly curious if there's anything else I can do to increase my odds here, and if the logic of what I was told above is sound. It seems obvious that the sats I'm sending are the same ones that are being received by the receiver, they're not mixed within blocks, and that the only risk is that my inscription happens to be attached to one of the satoshi's within the fee. I'm also curious if miners could "snipe" the inscription, but I'm assuming that's not possible as well.

I have a UTXO with an inscription that is now valuable, but I accidentally received it into a non-Taproot (bech32, native segwit) wallet.

I'm now aware that because of this, I can't use Ordinal theory to control which satoshis are being spent when I send this transaction.

What I'm wondering is, is there any way to dictate which UTXO the fees come from? This was accepted into a clean wallet, so it's currently the only UTXO. If I add another UTXO, would the fees come from that instead? Thus ensuring that the first UTXO is fully received by the receiver.

I'm aware of one person who was in the same situation. He sent two more UTXOs of 100k satoshis, and then paid the minimum possible fee while keeping bytes low, then pushed his transaction through the VIA btc transaction accelerator. The fee was about ~250 sats, so he had a ~250/200000 chance of failure. It went through successfully.

I'm mostly curious if there's anything else I can do to increase my odds here, and if the logic of what I was told above is sound. It seems obvious that the sats I'm sending are the same ones that are being received by the receiver, they're not mixed within blocks, and that the only risk is that my inscription happens to be attached to one of the satoshi's within the fee. I'm also curious if miners could "snipe" the inscription, but I'm assuming that's not possible as well.