<p>Confirmation concept is generally useful for the counterparty to be sure that the transaction through which he has received the BTC cannot be reversed. Nothing stops you from creating a new transaction referencing the outpoints (<code>txid</code> and <code>n</code>) of the transaction through which you just spent your 1BTC, if you do not plan on changing the previously broadcasted transaction by say a higher fee. Either both transactions can get mined in the single block, or the second transaction can get mined in block after the first transaction has been mined. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T07:16:43.780Z
2019-05-30T07:16:43.780Z
Ugam Kamat
<p>I am new to bitcoin so please bear my question. To understand the IN's and OUT's of this crypto world, i am creating a dummy bank to have a better understanding of the system. </p>

<p>So I have a bitcoin core running in my local system. Now for each user in the system I create an account for them using the <code>getaccountaddress</code>.</p>

<p>So let us consider I have one account named <strong>A</strong> having a deposit of <strong>10 BTC.</strong> Now, suppose the user <strong>A</strong> wish to withdraw <strong>1BTC</strong> from his account so, I first find all unspent transactions filter it by address associated by account A and send this 1BTC to user A. Now as I understand that the bitcoin cannot be partially spent so the remaining change will go to a change address so I provided account A's address from which the transaction was created.</p>

<p>Now my problem is that if the user again wishes to <strong>withdraw</strong>, I cannot find any unspent transaction since the change is not yet received immediately and will only be available when the transaction is confirmed.
So what is better way to handle this? What is a typical standard to handle such situation? How does wallet like <strong>Electrum</strong> works as I can see that I can send multiple transactions one after another.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-31T16:49:02.077Z
Why send them one after another rather than aggregating them into a single transaction?
David Schwartz
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-31T17:39:25.943Z
How about an order processing system where I wish to process an order as soon as I receive?
Paras
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-31T17:42:40.150Z
Then I'd just treat all the bitcoins that I had as one common pool. If the payment was on behalf of a particular account, I'd debit that account for the payment but I wouldn't try to use segregated bitcoins for each account, it makes things much less efficient. When you have $10,000 at a bank, there's no specific bills they have that are your $10,000 -- that's what creates the problem you're having.
David Schwartz
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-31T17:46:24.103Z
I got your point. ;-)
Paras
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-31T17:47:16.180Z
can you help me with this?
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/88085/bitcoin-core-what-default-values-should-i-pass-for-some-positional-rpc-params-in
Paras
<bitcoin-core><bitcoind><bitcoin-cash>
How to handle multiple transactions from the same account(address)?
Paras
# How to handle multiple transactions from the same account(address)?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-05-30)

I am new to bitcoin so please bear my question. To understand the IN's and OUT's of this crypto world, i am creating a dummy bank to have a better understanding of the system.

So I have a bitcoin core running in my local system. Now for each user in the system I create an account for them using the `getaccountaddress`.

So let us consider I have one account named **A** having a deposit of **10 BTC.** Now, suppose the user **A** wish to withdraw **1BTC** from his account so, I first find all unspent transactions filter it by address associated by account A and send this 1BTC to user A. Now as I understand that the bitcoin cannot be partially spent so the remaining change will go to a change address so I provided account A's address from which the transaction was created.

Now my problem is that if the user again wishes to **withdraw**, I cannot find any unspent transaction since the change is not yet received immediately and will only be available when the transaction is confirmed.
So what is better way to handle this? What is a typical standard to handle such situation? How does wallet like **Electrum** works as I can see that I can send multiple transactions one after another.

**Tags:** bitcoin-core, bitcoind, bitcoin-cash

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Why send them one after another rather than aggregating them into a single transaction?  
> **username_0**: How about an order processing system where I wish to process an order as soon as I receive?  
> **username_1**: Then I'd just treat all the bitcoins that I had as one common pool. If the payment was on behalf of a particular account, I'd debit that account for the payment but I wouldn't try to use segregated bitcoins for each account, it makes things much less efficient. When you have $10,000 at a bank, there's no specific bills they have that are your $10,000 -- that's what creates the problem you're having.  
> **username_0**: I got your point. ;-)  
> **username_0**: can you help me with this? https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/88085/bitcoin-core-what-default-values-should-i-pass-for-some-positional-rpc-params-in  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2019-05-30. Score: 1

Confirmation concept is generally useful for the counterparty to be sure that the transaction through which he has received the BTC cannot be reversed. Nothing stops you from creating a new transaction referencing the outpoints (`txid` and `n`) of the transaction through which you just spent your 1BTC, if you do not plan on changing the previously broadcasted transaction by say a higher fee. Either both transactions can get mined in the single block, or the second transaction can get mined in block after the first transaction has been mined.


---

