2

I have created a transaction with high miner's fee and it is now in mempool (in testnet):

https://live.blockcypher.com/btc-testnet/tx/abcc4ce473f490896e87102fe3ffb857ff735a0fc97525dadf9c5b0ed5410f9f/

However, it doesn't seem to be confirming. It's already missed two opportunities to confirm. Transactions with much lower miner's fees are going through instead.

Is Bitcoin this random or am I missing something?

Improve this question
2
  • Another possible cause is that your transaction has an output which is dust, as do several of its ancestors (which are also still unconfirmed). But I am not sure whether the dust rule is enforced by testnet nodes by default.
    – Nate Eldredge
    Commented Aug 31, 2018 at 4:50
  • It's confirmed now.
    – Nate Eldredge
    Commented Aug 31, 2018 at 13:41

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

Decoding your transaction shows an output:

"vout": [
    {
      "value": 0.00000000,
      "n": 0,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "OP_RETURN 68656c6c6f5f776f726c64",
        "hex": "6a0b68656c6c6f5f776f726c64",
        "type": "nulldata"
      }
    }, ...

This might be the reason the miners won't touch it as it may be flagged as non-standard on older nodes. Notice the warning on blockcypher:

Non-standard

Maybe someone can comment on exactly why, as these null_data transactions were made standard on Bitcoin-core 0.9.0, see https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#null-data

Improve this answer
2
  • I wondered about this possibility, but I thought the "standard" checks were disabled on testnet. Also, what with the segwit soft fork, I don't think there could possibly be any miners running 0.9.0 or earlier.
    – Nate Eldredge
    Commented Aug 31, 2018 at 4:25
  • Yeah that's what I was thinking as well, it's curious. blockcypher states it is in 71 mempools at the moment, seems low to me.
    – JBaczuk
    Commented Aug 31, 2018 at 4:31
0

I'm also having problems with testnet which I have not seen before. I'm thinking I may have changed something in my scripts but cannot see what it could be. I'm using multi-sigs for most of the destination addresses

https://tchain.btc.com/2N16FGLa4YpTnCuby9xZT2T2q3rkAxfcX6Y https://tchain.btc.com/5cd81ee81ca48500edb78956aefa6f9f06074a7a7a234579313e5e40cb01b022

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.