Open RocksteadyTC opened 6 years ago
I had a hunch that spreading more big blocks of currency through many wallets might help, and have noticed some transactions were able to be cleared by rapidly sending larger and larger transactions with a small mixin. Either that or time fixed them, but the clearing coincides with larger transactions saturating the TX pool.
@RocksteadyTC Come join us at https://t.me/forknote to discuss it
Thanks @luiscosio but I don't have a telegram account. Are you saying there is a solution or insight to this issue being discussed in there now? I'd like to keep this on github so that others with the same issue can find the information, if possible
@RocksteadyTC We are discussing all the issues we are finding creating a premined cryptocurrency w/ GUI and pool, documenting everything and we are planning on doing pull requests and a guide here (https://gist.github.com/luiscosio/7a35d8b6f61b7943cb532feeb9fdf563)
Hypothesis: I have an idea that sending a transaction with a large amount of coin hashes in it and a mixin above 0 will cause it to be unconfirmed for a week or so until it is cancelled. In the case of TurtleCoin, it happens when we send amounts of 2,500,000+ TRTL with a mixin above 0. The coins, i suspect, are still on the wallet where they originated, because when loading the wallet in the GUI and doing a reset of the funds you will see the total coins increment all the way as if the coins never left until the absolutely last line of transaction history where it sees the hung transaction. My assumption is that it will not allow these coins return to circulation because they're deemed "double spent" maybe.
The issue was referenced in other threads, but no solutions have been found, to my knowledge. https://github.com/turtlecoin/meta/issues/21 https://github.com/amjuarez/bytecoin/issues/163
Questions: Is there a way to do the equivalent of rescanning the spent transaction hashes to add them back to the wallet? Monero has a function like
rescan_spent
that looks like it was made to remedy this situation.Would the max_transaction_size extension be useful or relevant in avoiding this in the future?
In your experience, where do you think the coins reside? With the sender or recipient in this case?
Mentioning relevant parties for comment, @pmitchev @valiant1x