small BTC transactions don't show in wallet_account_transaction_history

monsterer · February 24, 2015, 08:17:40 AM

Quote from: vikram on February 23, 2015, 09:15:05 PM
What is output if recipient does "wallet_verify_titan_deposit 7c6f9e64d6609f26b4eb4353d4e56458fbf2a168" on the bad transaction?

Code Select

wallet_verify_titan_deposit 7c6f9e64d6609f26b4eb4353d4e56458fbf2a168
{
  "from": "monsterer",
  "to": "metaexchangebtc",
  "amount": {
    "amount": 10000,
    "asset_id": 4
  },
  "memo": "4-12HcYvrSNWCcLj5TJaFGfFBvN8uTuZsd"
}
{
  "from": "monsterer",
  "to": "metaexchangebtc",
  "amount": {
    "amount": 10000,
    "asset_id": 4
  },
  "memo": "4-12HcYvrSNWCcLj5TJaFGfFBvN8uTuZsd"
}

vikram · February 23, 2015, 09:15:05 PM

What is output if recipient does "wallet_verify_titan_deposit 7c6f9e64d6609f26b4eb4353d4e56458fbf2a168" on the bad transaction?

vikram · February 23, 2015, 07:23:00 PM

Quote from: monsterer on February 23, 2015, 06:03:40 PM
Quote from: vikram on February 23, 2015, 05:47:03 PM
Hmm, maybe it has to do with yield.. Can you check if the same problem is there even when there is no accumulated yield?

You might be right - just sent another 0.0001 BTC now and it turned up just fine with no yield payment.

Good to know; I will take another look: https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/issues/1399

Let me know if you notice any other details about the problem.

monsterer · February 23, 2015, 06:03:40 PM

Quote from: vikram on February 23, 2015, 05:47:03 PM
Hmm, maybe it has to do with yield.. Can you check if the same problem is there even when there is no accumulated yield?

You might be right - just sent another 0.0001 BTC now and it turned up just fine with no yield payment.

vikram · February 23, 2015, 05:47:03 PM

Quote from: monsterer on February 18, 2015, 08:11:07 PM
Quote from: vikram on February 17, 2015, 08:59:10 PM
I am unable reproduce this--does this reliably happen for different recipient wallets? What is the output if the recipient does "wallet_scan_transaction <transaction_id>" ?

I've not tried any other wallets. The (partial) output is this:

Code Select Expand
,{ "type": "withdraw_op_type", "data": { "balance_id": "BTS8zw3cCxxEaw5Aea14iQ7jGSLQG3bA8kFt", "amount": 10000, "claim_input_data": "" } },{ "type": "withdraw_op_type", "data": { "balance_id": "BTS9G75mAbk1k9NvR4RHWfaiSzzNRug81Fj2", "amount": 10000, "claim_input_data": "" } } ], "signatures": [ "1f399a79106c477a3f4461660d496e728e60dc6f6e981afcac981b441a682c370f6f00b4657cb30353c5bed882d4e09bf5de9aad72c3a64c3c00c7b0c0c7f271f1", "1f163fa994a4110b6bfc68e7f47a4b76ff8f464d5b779049cf530c015d21fc3c4c35daef4e83a4902ccc90442fea1c27cf84404a5c0de0a9dc2f163e89243e5aab" ] }, "ledger_entries": [], "fee": { "amount": 10000, "asset_id": 0 }, "created_time": "2015-02-15T11:38:40", "received_time": "2015-02-15T11:38:40", "extra_addresses": [] }

Note the lack of ledger entry values?

edit: could it be to do with the multiple outputs in the very first transaction? (output from sender's wallet):

Code Select Expand
> wallet_get_transaction 7c6f9e64 TIMESTAMP BLOCK FROM TO AMOUNT MEMO FEE ID ======================================================================================================================================================================== |2015-02-15T11:38:34 1795400 NETWORK monsterer 0.00010020 BTC yield 0.10000 BTS 7c6f9e64| | monsterer UNKNOWN 0.00000 BTS | | NETWORK monsterer 0.00000020 BTC yield | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm, maybe it has to do with yield.. Can you check if the same problem is there even when there is no accumulated yield?

monsterer · February 19, 2015, 10:12:40 PM

Quote from: abit on February 19, 2015, 10:10:18 PM
There are known bugs with wallet_account_transaction_history.. Is your balances correct? If yes you could just ignore the history by now.

I can't ignore wallet_account_transaction_history, because that's what metaexchange.info uses to process incoming transactions. The alternative is to manually parse the blockchain, which is totally insane.

abit · February 19, 2015, 10:10:18 PM

There are known bugs with wallet_account_transaction_history.. Is your balances correct? If yes you could just ignore the history by now.

By the way here is where the 0.0001 BTC went:

Code Select


(wallet closed) >>> blockchain_get_transaction 7c6f9e64d6609f26b4eb4353d4e56458fbf2a168
[
  "7c6f9e64d6609f26b4eb4353d4e56458fbf2a168",{
    "trx": {
      "expiration": "2015-02-15T12:45:53",
      "reserved": null,
      "operations": [{
          "type": "deposit_op_type",
          "data": {
            "amount": 10000,
            "condition": {
              "asset_id": 4,
              "slate_id": 0,
              "type": "withdraw_signature_type",
              "data": {
                "owner": "BTS3qb4gPgkT7QDMxhoPLnHFs6wQeS3wKgwu",
                "memo": {
                  "one_time_key": "BTS5v7iybMfyH3KXPF41vPjyVixVHEJSAZJEwyoD9ieZ4u1kUGnPA",
                  "encrypted_memo_data": "93847b9d575a58b2d71c0d4d263a6e869f7d18b4819c81c0fad71881fcd902446c6c33175fe848e408d0f907a120ecab86f881bf5622c75054b57ad50392b4fc3adcda537051def8d914bb061f8a2089eb26c836cfae9b4ed4cb862908a6ab6c"
                }
              }
            }
          }
        }
...

Code Select


(wallet closed) >>> blockchain_list_address_balances "BTS3qb4gPgkT7QDMxhoPLnHFs6wQeS3wKgwu"
[[
    "BTS6LwqtsYUHXjHDFXjBejdr8aJfdEnRQ4HH",{
      "condition": {
        "asset_id": 4,
        "slate_id": 0,
        "type": "withdraw_signature_type",
        "data": {
          "owner": "BTS3qb4gPgkT7QDMxhoPLnHFs6wQeS3wKgwu",
          "memo": {
            "one_time_key": "BTS5v7iybMfyH3KXPF41vPjyVixVHEJSAZJEwyoD9ieZ4u1kUGnPA",
            "encrypted_memo_data": "93847b9d575a58b2d71c0d4d263a6e869f7d18b4819c81c0fad71881fcd902446c6c33175fe848e408d0f907a120ecab86f881bf5622c75054b57ad50392b4fc3adcda537051def8d914bb061f8a2089eb26c836cfae9b4ed4cb862908a6ab6c"
          }
        }
      },
      "balance": 10000,
      "restricted_owner": null,
      "snapshot_info": null,
      "deposit_date": "2015-02-15T11:38:30",
      "last_update": "2015-02-15T11:38:30",
      "meta_data": null
    }
  ]
]

Try:

Code Select


wallet_dump_private_key BTS3qb4gPgkT7QDMxhoPLnHFs6wQeS3wKgwu
wallet_dump_private_key BTS6LwqtsYUHXjHDFXjBejdr8aJfdEnRQ4HH

It's fine if you see a key.

monsterer · February 18, 2015, 08:11:07 PM

Quote from: vikram on February 17, 2015, 08:59:10 PM
I am unable reproduce this--does this reliably happen for different recipient wallets? What is the output if the recipient does "wallet_scan_transaction <transaction_id>" ?

I've not tried any other wallets. The (partial) output is this:

Code Select

,{
        "type": "withdraw_op_type",
        "data": {
          "balance_id": "BTS8zw3cCxxEaw5Aea14iQ7jGSLQG3bA8kFt",
          "amount": 10000,
          "claim_input_data": ""
        }
      },{
        "type": "withdraw_op_type",
        "data": {
          "balance_id": "BTS9G75mAbk1k9NvR4RHWfaiSzzNRug81Fj2",
          "amount": 10000,
          "claim_input_data": ""
        }
      }
    ],
    "signatures": [
      "1f399a79106c477a3f4461660d496e728e60dc6f6e981afcac981b441a682c370f6f00b4657cb30353c5bed882d4e09bf5de9aad72c3a64c3c00c7b0c0c7f271f1",
      "1f163fa994a4110b6bfc68e7f47a4b76ff8f464d5b779049cf530c015d21fc3c4c35daef4e83a4902ccc90442fea1c27cf84404a5c0de0a9dc2f163e89243e5aab"
    ]
  },
  "ledger_entries": [],
  "fee": {
    "amount": 10000,
    "asset_id": 0
  },
  "created_time": "2015-02-15T11:38:40",
  "received_time": "2015-02-15T11:38:40",
  "extra_addresses": []
}

Note the lack of ledger entry values?

edit: could it be to do with the multiple outputs in the very first transaction? (output from sender's wallet):

Code Select

> wallet_get_transaction 7c6f9e64

 TIMESTAMP           BLOCK     FROM                TO                  AMOUNT                  MEMO                                        FEE                 ID      
========================================================================================================================================================================
|2015-02-15T11:38:34 1795400   NETWORK             monsterer           0.00010020 BTC          yield                                       0.10000 BTS         7c6f9e64|
|                              monsterer           UNKNOWN             0.00000 BTS                                                                                     |
|                              NETWORK             monsterer           0.00000020 BTC          yield                                                                   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vikram · February 17, 2015, 08:59:10 PM

I am unable reproduce this--does this reliably happen for different recipient wallets? What is the output if the recipient does "wallet_scan_transaction <transaction_id>" ?

monsterer · February 15, 2015, 10:10:18 PM

Quote from: vikram on February 15, 2015, 09:42:32 PM
Please post or PM me the transaction IDs of the example transactions.

7c6f9e64
02b5c3ed
7a0fa489

All appear in the outgoing wallet, but never showed up in the incoming wallet's wallet_account_transaction_history results.

vikram · February 15, 2015, 09:42:32 PM

Please post or PM me the transaction IDs of the example transactions.

monsterer · February 15, 2015, 12:25:59 PM

If I send 0.0001 BTC it never appears in the receivers wallet_account_transaction_history, but if I send 0.001 it does!

The offending transaction(s) do arrive because wallet_verify_titan_deposit shows they arrived, but wallet_account_transaction_history never shows them!

Needless to say this is causing me all kinds of problems - is there some kind of new dust limit somewhere?