A Bitcoin person paid 83.7 Bitcoin (BTC) value $3.1 million in transaction charges for transferring 139.42 BTC. The transaction price of $3.1 million is the eighth highest in Bitcoin’s 14-year historical past.
The BTC pockets address bc1qn3d…wekrnl tried transferring 139.42 BTC to bc1qyf…km36t4 earlier on Nov. 23, solely to pay greater than half the precise worth within the transition price. The vacation spot deal with acquired solely 55.77 BTC. The mining pool Antpool captured the absurdly excessive mining price on block 818087.
Customers on social media instructed that the sender chosen the excessive transaction price, however Change-By-Charge (RBF), a node coverage, and the sender’s unawareness additionally seem to have performed an element. RBF permits an unconfirmed transaction in a mempool to get replaced with a unique transaction that pays the next transaction price, with a purpose to get it cleared earlier. Mempool is the place all BTC transactions are queued earlier than approval and addition to the Bitcoin blockchain.
A mempool developer who goes by the Twitter title of Mononaut said that the person behind the switch in all probability didn’t know RBF orders can’t be canceled. The person may need changed the charges a number of occasions in hopes of canceling it. The RBF historical past signifies that the final substitute elevated the price by one other 20%, including 12.54824636 BTC in charges.
This isn’t the primary occasion a Bitcoin person by accident despatched an absurdly excessive transaction price for a single Bitcoin transaction. In September, Bitcoin trade platform Paxos accidentally sent $500,000 in transaction fees for $2000 value of BTC switch. Nevertheless, the f2pool miner who verified that transaction returned the $500,000 accidental transaction fee to Paxos.
Mononaut advised Cointelegraph that though the present occasion of unintentional transition price is analogous to the Paxos case, the likelihood the funds can be returned by Antpool would depend upon their very own payout insurance policies, ”which could have implications for what obligations they should share transaction charges with their miners.”
Antpool has but to touch upon the difficulty and hasn’t responded to Cointelegraph’s requests for feedback.