<p>This is my first question here, maybe I make a beginners mistakes.
I am running bitcoin core on a raspi, which is good with bitcoind but sometimes bitcoin-qt is too much load and the node breaks down. So I use bitcoin-qt only to spend money from my wallet, then shut it down and start bitcoind again.
Maybe I have shut down the software in a critical state. The transaction is not broadcastet. I have sent out another small amount which succeeded, and in the debug.log I can see, that for this one there are 4 entries:</p>
<p>AddToWallet txid newupdate</p>
<p>Submitting wtx txid to mempool for relay</p>
<p>AddToWallet txid</p>
<p>and later</p>
<p>AddToWallet txid update.</p>
<p>For the stuck transaction the last entry is missing in the debug.log.</p>
<p>abandon transaction tells me</p>
<p>Transaction not eligible for abandonment</p>
<p>listtransactions tells me</p>
<p>&quot;confirmations&quot;: 0</p>
<p>since 2 days. The spent amount is substracted from my wallet content.</p>
<p>I am running Bitcoin Core version v22.0.0.
Have tried to update to version 27, but that would require OS update before.</p>
<p>What can I do?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-09T16:36:55.073Z
Is it possible that your transaction is still waiting for confirmation because it’s feerate is not high enough to have bubbled up to the top?
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-09T16:45:12.260Z
The transaction does not make it to blockchain.com, so perhaps that's what I should have mentioned. I have learned to send a small amount with bitcoin-cli in the meantime, it does also not get the entry "AddToWallet txid update" but it is now already known in blockchain.com
HorstKern
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-09T16:51:08.933Z
If it doesn’t appear in the mempool of blockchain explorers, there might be another issue with the transaction. Are you doing something uncommon? E.g. is the feerate below 1 ṩ/vB, is too big, has too many op_return outputs, or is it otherwise non-standard?
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-09T17:15:14.213Z
The fee is "fee": -0.00001312. The two other transaction, which made it ti the mempool of blockchain explorers had similar fees. Another observation: Whenever I stop and restart bitcoind the entries in the log file appear again "AddToWallet" and "Submitting wtx txid to mempool for relay". Might it be the the software tries to complete the transaction, but the wallet is locked because of the passphrase?
HorstKern
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-10T17:39:44.233Z
After the transaction is signed, it is immutable, so that should not be a problem. 1312 sats should be enough if the transaction isn’t too big. Do you know the weight of the transaction? If you were able to share the txid or the makeup of the transaction, we could understand better what the problem might be.
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-11T13:44:52.820Z
Here is the output of gettransaction, I have repaced some values by xx, because it is dealing with money. Please let me know if any of these values are necessary for the analysis.
HorstKern
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-11T16:38:32.207Z
I deleted your comment because it still contained the txid. Here is what Horst wrote with a bit more sanitation:
"amount": -0.xx, "fee": -0.00001416, "confirmations": 0, "trusted": true, "txid": "xxxxx", "walletconflicts": [ ], "time": 1733502999, "timereceived": 1733502999, "bip125-replaceable": "yes", "details": [ { "address": "xxx", "category": "send", "amount": -0.xx, "label": "xxx", "vout": 1, "fee": -0.00001416, "abandoned": false } ], "hex": "xxx"
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-11T16:41:00.147Z
I see that the transaction only has a single output, but I don’t see the input count. One thing that is missing is the weight of the transaction. Without knowing the size/weight, the fee doesn’t tell us much about the feerate. If the feerate is under 1.99 s/vB, most mempools will currently probably not accept the transaction and not relay it, so that could explain why it is not making it to blockchain.com.
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-11T19:01:18.220Z
Thanks a lot for the explanations so far. The size of the contents of the "hex": value is 445 characters. Would it be a good try to do sendrawtransaction with this hex-value?
HorstKern
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-11T19:19:55.250Z
That should be more than 3 s/vB, and enough for the transaction to propagate across the network. Yes, you could force your node to rebroadcast it by using "sendrawtransaction" with the hex of your transaction. Is it possible that it has a parent transaction that did not propagate, or even a chain of ancestor transactions that it depends on? Or is it maybe an issue with blockchain.com?—Is it visible on mempool.space? The most likely explanation seems to me that the one of the inputs is unknown to other nodes, or the tx is in some way non-standard. But if it’s just a payment that would be odd.
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-11T19:20:08.927Z
Oh, is the recipient amount very small?
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-11T19:20:32.643Z
This conversation is getting pretty long. I’ve moved these comments [to **chat**](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/156627/discussion-on-question-by-horstkern-transaction-stuck-between-addtowallet-newupd); please join the chat and continue the discussion there, if you are able.
Murch
<transactions><full-node><broadcast>
Transaction stuck between AddToWallet newupdate and AddToWallet update
HorstKern
# Transaction stuck between AddToWallet newupdate and AddToWallet update

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-12-09)

This is my first question here, maybe I make a beginners mistakes.
I am running bitcoin core on a raspi, which is good with bitcoind but sometimes bitcoin-qt is too much load and the node breaks down. So I use bitcoin-qt only to spend money from my wallet, then shut it down and start bitcoind again.
Maybe I have shut down the software in a critical state. The transaction is not broadcastet. I have sent out another small amount which succeeded, and in the debug.log I can see, that for this one there are 4 entries:

AddToWallet txid newupdate

Submitting wtx txid to mempool for relay

AddToWallet txid

and later

AddToWallet txid update.

For the stuck transaction the last entry is missing in the debug.log.

abandon transaction tells me

Transaction not eligible for abandonment

listtransactions tells me

"confirmations": 0

since 2 days. The spent amount is substracted from my wallet content.

I am running Bitcoin Core version v22.0.0.
Have tried to update to version 27, but that would require OS update before.

What can I do?

**Tags:** transactions, full-node, broadcast

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Is it possible that your transaction is still waiting for confirmation because it’s feerate is not high enough to have bubbled up to the top?  
> **username_0**: The transaction does not make it to blockchain.com, so perhaps that's what I should have mentioned. I have learned to send a small amount with bitcoin-cli in the meantime, it does also not get the entry "AddToWallet txid update" but it is now already known in blockchain.com  
> **username_1**: If it doesn’t appear in the mempool of blockchain explorers, there might be another issue with the transaction. Are you doing something uncommon? E.g. is the feerate below 1 ṩ/vB, is too big, has too many op_return outputs, or is it otherwise non-standard?  
> **username_0**: The fee is "fee": -0.00001312. The two other transaction, which made it ti the mempool of blockchain explorers had similar fees. Another observation: Whenever I stop and restart bitcoind the entries in the log file appear again "AddToWallet" and "Submitting wtx txid to mempool for relay". Might it be the the software tries to complete the transaction, but the wallet is locked because of the passphrase?  
> **username_1**: After the transaction is signed, it is immutable, so that should not be a problem. 1312 sats should be enough if the transaction isn’t too big. Do you know the weight of the transaction? If you were able to share the txid or the makeup of the transaction, we could understand better what the problem might be.  
> **username_0**: Here is the output of gettransaction, I have repaced some values by xx, because it is dealing with money. Please let me know if any of these values are necessary for the analysis.  
> **username_1**: I deleted your comment because it still contained the txid. Here is what Horst wrote with a bit more sanitation: "amount": -0.xx, "fee": -0.00001416, "confirmations": 0, "trusted": true, "txid": "xxxxx", "walletconflicts": [ ], "time": 1733502999, "timereceived": 1733502999, "bip125-replaceable": "yes", "details": [ { "address": "xxx", "category": "send", "amount": -0.xx, "label": "xxx", "vout": 1, "fee": -0.00001416, "abandoned": false } ], "hex": "xxx"  
> **username_1**: I see that the transaction only has a single output, but I don’t see the input count. One thing that is missing is the weight of the transaction. Without knowing the size/weight, the fee doesn’t tell us much about the feerate. If the feerate is under 1.99 s/vB, most mempools will currently probably not accept the transaction and not relay it, so that could explain why it is not making it to blockchain.com.  
> **username_0**: Thanks a lot for the explanations so far. The size of the contents of the "hex": value is 445 characters. Would it be a good try to do sendrawtransaction with this hex-value?  
> **username_1**: That should be more than 3 s/vB, and enough for the transaction to propagate across the network. Yes, you could force your node to rebroadcast it by using "sendrawtransaction" with the hex of your transaction. Is it possible that it has a parent transaction that did not propagate, or even a chain of ancestor transactions that it depends on? Or is it maybe an issue with blockchain.com?—Is it visible on mempool.space? The most likely explanation seems to me that the one of the inputs is unknown to other nodes, or the tx is in some way non-standard. But if it’s just a payment that would be odd.  
> **username_1**: Oh, is the recipient amount very small?  
> **username_1**: This conversation is getting pretty long. I’ve moved these comments [to **chat**](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/156627/discussion-on-question-by-username_0-transaction-stuck-between-addtowallet-newupd); please join the chat and continue the discussion there, if you are able.  

---

## 0 answers

