blockchain – nLocketime error PUSH TRANSACTION ERROR: 64: NON-FINAL

Created nlocktime with electrum and used the time date feature which is using unix time instead of block height number for the locktime.

SO when pushing the raw tx before its time I get code 26 message non final which is fine as the time in the unix clock has not been reached.

Once the time arrived, I tried again and this time I get non-final (code 64) Why? And yes the btc from wallet being sent was confirmed at least with 1 confirmation. Here is the raw tx code. Any help would be appreciated as this is driving me crazy.

020000000156ab1d690e27b9d6dc3764233fa73a9749253472443e7d4efd86c7532eb58a64000000006a47304402205531d1b6808572a77bf649d480cb2f4676ead7035ed39bdb1bb1e928d5441a9102205710edaf122ec991ccab08a6945a1a728d08eecae5dbafb1e72c8481e1672f9d012102cbf41593c5fdb8caaf1942e0c4f2256de0a174c85b2d05252a9053dfc08de65afdffffff01a26900000000000017a91432d423f7e7722ed3ab0c87786e877b5f220148708795980460

{
“txid”: “5b0b8137b86986fe65b2d07346d7dde9cc94ac9cd20671f5161b3bc76012a995”,
“hash”: “5b0b8137b86986fe65b2d07346d7dde9cc94ac9cd20671f5161b3bc76012a995”,
“version”: 2,
“size”: 189,
“vsize”: 189,
“weight”: 756,
“locktime”: 1610914221,
“vin”: (
{
“txid”: “648ab52e53c786fd4e7d3e4472342549973aa73f236437dcd6b9270e691dab56”,
“vout”: 0,
“scriptSig”: {
“asm”: “304402203a3c80d8cb01c28558269fdda6faaa7b1b963030b8867d9c0a933b9813c192c802202770970cdb704416c8fe504a9ed518537e983d2cce534fafa02046aa2181bf7a(ALL) 02cbf41593c5fdb8caaf1942e0c4f2256de0a174c85b2d05252a9053dfc08de65a”,
“hex”: “47304402203a3c80d8cb01c28558269fdda6faaa7b1b963030b8867d9c0a933b9813c192c802202770970cdb704416c8fe504a9ed518537e983d2cce534fafa02046aa2181bf7a012102cbf41593c5fdb8caaf1942e0c4f2256de0a174c85b2d05252a9053dfc08de65a”
},
“sequence”: 4294967293
}
),
“vout”: (
{
“value”: 0.00026092,
“n”: 0,
“scriptPubKey”: {
“asm”: “OP_HASH160 32d423f7e7722ed3ab0c87786e877b5f22014870 OP_EQUAL”,
“hex”: “a91432d423f7e7722ed3ab0c87786e877b5f2201487087”,
“reqSigs”: 1,
“type”: “scripthash”,
“addresses”: (
“36Kmqv4k5cxigNvgV6Geejn7Cvc7MR3oPt”
)
}
}
)
}

database design – if Transaction 2 then attempted to UPDATE that row as well, a serialization failure would occur

Transaction 1
/* Query 1 */

 SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = 1;

Transaction 2

/* Query 2 */

UPDATE users SET age = 21 WHERE id = 1;
COMMIT; /* in multiversion concurrency
          control, or lock-based READ COMMITTED */

/* Query 1 */

SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = 1;
COMMIT; /* lock-based REPEATABLE READ */
                                  

Under multiversion concurrency control, at the SERIALIZABLE isolation level, both SELECT queries see a snapshot of the database taken at the start of Transaction 1. Therefore, they return the same data. However, if Transaction 2 then attempted to UPDATE that row as well, a serialization failure would occur and Transaction 1 would be forced to roll back.

If Transaction 2 attempted to UPDATE that row, how would a serialization failure occur?

Hidden fees in a transaction: How to anticipate one and avoid another?

I understand that the “dynamic network fee” is part of the process of operating the blockchain and cannot be avoided. But how can I anticipate in advance how much to expect this fee to be?

Without knowing how the exchange operates their wallet internally, this is unpredictable. Many exchanges will display an estimate for the transaction fee, but the transaction fee itself all depends on how they work. The transaction fee is not based on the amount being transacted; rather it is based on the size in bytes of the transaction itself. This size cannot be known without knowing how the exchange is creating their transactions.

I’ve read that it’s possible to transact bitcoin without using an exchange, and I suppose this would eliminate the price premium. What does one have to do in order to transact without an exchange?

You simply download and install a Bitcoin wallet software and use it to receive and send Bitcoin. The wallet software will allow you to create Bitcoin addresses which you can give out in order to receive Bitcoin. It will also allow you to send Bitcoin to addresses that you have received from others. Bitcoin.org has a page which lists out some wallet software that you can download.

$ 1,129,145,280 Moved Through A Single Transaction Over ETH Network

Veteran Ethereum developer Kain Warwick, founder of the high-level decentralized financial protocol Synthetix Network, announced possibly the biggest transaction of the day on Ethereum.
Details of the transaction have been viewed by leading ETH web browser Etherscan. According to the information, 74,580,269 SNX or a transfer of $ 1,129,145,279 was included in Ethereum’s block 11657482.
What do you think about this exciting process?

What contributes to the transaction size on a MySQL UPDATE?

Background

We’re running a MySQL 8 INNODB cluster behind some Java services. We received an error from the application because we’d exceeded the group replication transaction size limit (“Error on observer while running replication hook ‘before_commit’”). Our limit was set to 150Mb at the time.

Problem

Looking at the transaction involved I don’t understand how it might have involved anything like 150Mb.

It involved an update to two tables

update my_table mt 
inner join my_table_aud mta on mt.id = mta.id 
  set mt.boolean_column_1 = TRUE, 
      mt.boolean_column_2 = TRUE, 
      mt.varchar_column = coalesce(mt.varchar_column, ?2), 
      mta.varchar_column = coalesce(mta.varchar_column, ?2) 
where mt.boolean_column_1 = FALSE 
AND mta.rev <= ?1

which involved approximately 100 rows in my_table and maybe 200 rows in my_table_aud. Plus one other simple insert to a different table. The varchar columns were updated with around 10 bytes of data.

However the two tables involved in the UPDATE do both have a different longtext column, which wasn’t updated. There would have been on average maybe 1MB in text per row updated in those columns.

The only explanation I can think of for us exceeding the transaction limit would be that the text in longtext columns contributed to the transaction size, even though they were not referenced in the update.

I searched for documentation on what contributes to the transaction size of a transaction in MySQL and haven’t been able to find anything useful.

Please can someone help my understanding of how the transaction size limit might have been exceeded in this scenario?

mempool – Unconfirmed transaction for 6 days now. need assistance for using CPFP

I have an unconfirmed transaction that has been sitting there for 6 days now.
The fees only got higher sins i’ve made the transaction and i do not feel comfortabel waiting.
I’m unable to use RBF sins trezor thus not support this and i’m nor sure on how to use CPFP
the TX is : 8b5032bcc435ebc612128fb66c30d85af19febd6f03dafb9114253dac6a9e0cf

After the transaction i’ve noticed that the recieving wallet is a legacy one, while i’ve send it from a segwit. could that cause any problems?

Is there any risk comming with waiting any longer?

Thx