<p>Only the exchange can answer this - most exchanges and hosted wallets implement their own utxo handling mechanisms, and don't necessarily follow a space/fee optimal approach. There could be other considerations, such as reducing the number of utxos in their wallet, consolidating funds into bigger utxos during a low fee period as they expect larger payments during a high-fee time, or other business reasons.</p>

<p>Alternatively, it could just be an inefficient implementation.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-03T08:14:12.700Z
Thank you very much! I also think that this will be it.
Corvo_Kaan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-03T08:36:38.703Z
I hope this doesn't violate any forum etiquette, but I also asked this question on Bitcointalk.org.

Like you said the answers referenced the concept of input address consolidation.

Like you assumed, inputs are consolidated in times when fees are low, in order to keep the transaction size as small as possible in times when fees are high.

My forum post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5245438.new#new

A very helpful link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2848987.0
Corvo_Kaan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-03T08:08:14.557Z
2020-05-03T08:08:14.557Z
Raghav Sood
<p>The TXID I am talking about: 21179a8560a0a0906f0c3396af338f74528130d46b65b7f0c79c378d343b3177</p>

<p>blockchain.com link: <a href="https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/21179a8560a0a0906f0c3396af338f74528130d46b65b7f0c79c378d343b3177" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/21179a8560a0a0906f0c3396af338f74528130d46b65b7f0c79c378d343b3177</a></p>

<p><strong>3JZq4atUahhuA9rLhXLMhhTo133J9rF97j</strong> is a known Exchange-Address. </p>

<p>Within above listed transaction there are multiple output-transactions which this address has received referenced as input-transaction to pay <strong>1Kr6QSydW9bFQG1mXiPNNu6WpJGmUa9i1g</strong>.</p>

<p>In the above transaction, the source address <strong>3JZq4a..</strong> issues 7 previously received transactions to pay the target address <strong>1Kr6QSy...</strong> with <em>2000 BTC</em>, the rest goes back to its Change address.</p>

<p>My question now is why 7 transactions are "consumed" for this, when it would have worked with a fraction of the transactions.
For example the <em>7793.90573 BTC</em> transaction.</p>

<p>My first assumption was that this is somehow chronologically handled by the wallet, but even if that were the case, according to the listing in the blockchain explorer after the first 4 referenced transactions used as input, the sum would be sufficient.</p>

<p>131,37735 BTC</p>

<p>1687,1255 BTC</p>

<p>157,79525 BTC</p>

<p>395,876 BTC</p>

<p>Are the first Transactions consumed and the result already exceeds 2k BTC.</p>

<p>I am thankful for any help and ideas!</p>

<transaction-input>
More Input-Values than necessary. How and why is this possible? No it is not the fees!
Corvo_Kaan
# More Input-Values than necessary. How and why is this possible? No it is not the fees!

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-05-03)

The TXID I am talking about: 21179a8560a0a0906f0c3396af338f74528130d46b65b7f0c79c378d343b3177

blockchain.com link: <https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/21179a8560a0a0906f0c3396af338f74528130d46b65b7f0c79c378d343b3177>

**3JZq4atUahhuA9rLhXLMhhTo133J9rF97j** is a known Exchange-Address.

Within above listed transaction there are multiple output-transactions which this address has received referenced as input-transaction to pay **1Kr6QSydW9bFQG1mXiPNNu6WpJGmUa9i1g**.

In the above transaction, the source address **3JZq4a..** issues 7 previously received transactions to pay the target address **1Kr6QSy...** with *2000 BTC*, the rest goes back to its Change address.

My question now is why 7 transactions are "consumed" for this, when it would have worked with a fraction of the transactions.
For example the *7793.90573 BTC* transaction.

My first assumption was that this is somehow chronologically handled by the wallet, but even if that were the case, according to the listing in the blockchain explorer after the first 4 referenced transactions used as input, the sum would be sufficient.

131,37735 BTC

1687,1255 BTC

157,79525 BTC

395,876 BTC

Are the first Transactions consumed and the result already exceeds 2k BTC.

I am thankful for any help and ideas!

**Tags:** transaction-input


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-05-03. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

Only the exchange can answer this - most exchanges and hosted wallets implement their own utxo handling mechanisms, and don't necessarily follow a space/fee optimal approach. There could be other considerations, such as reducing the number of utxos in their wallet, consolidating funds into bigger utxos during a low fee period as they expect larger payments during a high-fee time, or other business reasons.

Alternatively, it could just be an inefficient implementation.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you very much! I also think that this will be it.  
> **username_0**: I hope this doesn't violate any forum etiquette, but I also asked this question on Bitcointalk.org.  Like you said the answers referenced the concept of input address consolidation.  Like you assumed, inputs are consolidated in times when fees are low, in order to keep the transaction size as small as possible in times when fees are high.  My forum post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5245438.new#new  A very helpful link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2848987.0  

---

