hush
/
SilentDragon
9
1
Fork 7
Code Issues 73 Pull Requests 1 Projects Releases 8 Wiki Activity
Labels Milestones
New Issue

Stuck transaction between two SD 1.3 dev branch clients #31

Closed
opened 3 years ago by jahway603 · 4 comments
jahway603 commented 3 years ago
Collaborator

Been testing the new SD 1.3 dev branch...

  • been successful testing transactions between SD 1.3 and SDL 1.5.2 wallets
  • current dev branch compiles and runs fine on both Arch and Artix Linux

Between two SD 1.3 wallets I have:

  • 1 successful transaction from Arch -> Artix
  • Issue: currently have a stuck transaction on the test of Artix -> Arch, so will see if it it needs more time or what. The hushd on it show's an unconfirmed transaction where the transaction screen shows the amount sent + the miner fee but the Balance tab only shows the total minus the miner fee.

It does not appear to be changing, but will update this issue accordingly.

Been testing the new SD 1.3 dev branch... - been successful testing transactions between SD 1.3 and SDL 1.5.2 wallets - current dev branch compiles and runs fine on both Arch and Artix Linux Between two SD 1.3 wallets I have: * 1 successful transaction from Arch -> Artix * **Issue: currently have a stuck transaction on the test of Artix -> Arch, so will see if it it needs more time or what. The hushd on it show's an unconfirmed transaction where the transaction screen shows the amount sent + the miner fee but the Balance tab only shows the total minus the miner fee.** It does not appear to be changing, but will update this issue accordingly.
duke commented 3 years ago
Owner

@jahway603 what happens after a restart? It's possible that your transaction was submitted and had a "success" opid return, but was then rejected by mempool. You can grep your debug.log for the txid and also look on the explorer for the txid, to see if the network accepted it

@jahway603 what happens after a restart? It's possible that your transaction was submitted and had a "success" opid return, but was then rejected by mempool. You can grep your debug.log for the txid and also look on the explorer for the txid, to see if the network accepted it
jahway603 was assigned by duke 3 years ago
duke commented 2 years ago
Owner

@jahway603 any update on this? My guess is that one of the nodes had some inconsistency in it's wallet.dat, possibly from a previous crash. If you don't have those wallets available for testing anymore, let's close this and make a new issue for the latest dev branch, if it happens again.

@jahway603 any update on this? My guess is that one of the nodes had some inconsistency in it's wallet.dat, possibly from a previous crash. If you don't have those wallets available for testing anymore, let's close this and make a new issue for the latest `dev` branch, if it happens again.
jahway603 commented 2 years ago
Poster
Collaborator

@duke I still have access to both of these wallets. I will check if this is still an issue when I have physical access to both of these systems and report back.

@duke I still have access to both of these wallets. I will check if this is still an issue when I have physical access to both of these systems and report back.
👍 1
jahway603 commented 2 years ago
Poster
Collaborator

@duke I just tested transactions fine between these same two wallets when the issue was reported. They are both now running hushd 3.9.2 and SD 1.3.0.

The initial issue transaction is still "funky" though as I can see it in the block explorer, I see the transaction in the Transaction tab of the wallet this was originally reported on, but I don't see the transaction at all on the receiving end's Transaction tab.

Closing this strange but non-reproducible issue.

@duke I just tested transactions fine between these same two wallets when the issue was reported. They are both now running hushd 3.9.2 and SD 1.3.0. The initial issue transaction is still "funky" though as I can see it in the block explorer, I see the transaction in the Transaction tab of the wallet this was originally reported on, but I don't see the transaction at all on the receiving end's Transaction tab. Closing this strange but non-reproducible issue.
👍 1
jahway603 closed this issue 2 years ago
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
chat
custom_themes
danger
dev
duke
importviewkey
master
no_mining_until_synced
old_duke
onryo
recurring
Labels
Apply labels
Clear labels
0-500 bounty
bounty up to 500 HUSH 2001-5000 bounty
bounty between 2001 and 5000 HUSH 501-2000 bounty
bounty between 501 and 2000 HUSH arm
something doesn't work on arm beginners
for new developers bug
may or may not be a bug build
problems building documentation
not enough information feature
new feature high priority
high priority i2p
related to i2p low priority
low priority medium priority
medium priority question
something is not clear release
release label or issue related to it tor
related to tor translation
translation update windows
related to windows wontfix
this won't be fixed
No Label 0-500 bounty 2001-5000 bounty 501-2000 bounty arm beginners bug build documentation feature high priority i2p low priority medium priority question release tor translation windows wontfix
Milestone
Set milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Assign users
Clear assignees
No Assignees
jahway603
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

This issue currently doesn't have any dependencies.

Write Preview
Loading…
Cancel
Save
There is no content yet.
Delete Branch '%!s(MISSING)'

Deleting a branch is permanent. It CANNOT be undone. Continue?

No
Yes