Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 5, 2020. It is now read-only.

[Ethereum Wallet] Sent fund, several days but still "Sorry, we are unable to locate this Transaction Hash" on etherscan #3758

Open
Kuan5485 opened this issue Mar 17, 2018 · 9 comments

Comments

@Kuan5485
Copy link

Kuan5485 commented Mar 17, 2018

Yesterday made two transactions; Gas 21000, limit 50000, end up used 21000. Both are confirmed and passed now.

Today try sending fund, been several days now but it's still showing "Sorry, we are unable to locate this Transaction Hash" in etherscan.

All transaction using Light client to make.

Ethereum Wallet as 2nd biggest CryptoCurrency but so buggy? ... Zzz

Version: `0.9.3` (Ethereum Wallet)
OS & Version: windows 10
Node version: `geth 1.8.2` 
Number of blocks synchronized: 5,272,129 (Synchronized with Light client; Full client always stuck at 65 nodes)

image

@Kuan5485 Kuan5485 changed the title [Ethereum Wallet] Sent fund, 8 hours passed but still "Sorry, we are unable to locate this Transaction Hash" on ethcan [Ethereum Wallet] Sent fund, 8 hours passed but still "Sorry, we are unable to locate this Transaction Hash" on ethercan Mar 17, 2018
@Kuan5485 Kuan5485 changed the title [Ethereum Wallet] Sent fund, 8 hours passed but still "Sorry, we are unable to locate this Transaction Hash" on ethercan [Ethereum Wallet] Sent fund, 8 hours passed but still "Sorry, we are unable to locate this Transaction Hash" on etherscan Mar 17, 2018
@Kuan5485 Kuan5485 changed the title [Ethereum Wallet] Sent fund, 8 hours passed but still "Sorry, we are unable to locate this Transaction Hash" on etherscan [Ethereum Wallet] Sent fund, several days but still "Sorry, we are unable to locate this Transaction Hash" on etherscan Mar 20, 2018
@Kuan5485
Copy link
Author

Hi
@evertonfraga @alexvandesande

How will these transactions end up?
Few days already, have the tx hash but never appear in chain, no status at all

@alexvandesande
Copy link

Sometimes a transaction is created but your node doesn't have any peers and it fails to relay to the rest of the network. This means that the transaction is never made and no funds are spent. Check etherscan and you'll see nothing has changed.

@Kuan5485
Copy link
Author

Kuan5485 commented Mar 23, 2018

@alexvandesande

Thanks for the answer

So even if there's a 'tx hash' for reference, the txn could still be an invalid one, am I right?
In that case, do we pay for the Gas ?

Btw, isn't it better for the system just delete it from the tx history if it's invalid? Cause it will be misleading!

If wants to keep it there, I think it will be better if the system will automatically re-initiate the sending of fund again?

Besides, this should be a bug?
When I click on any of those transactions, it always showing 'Gas used | 121,000', for both Confirmed and Invalid(With Tx.hash but never appear in the chain) Transaction, that is misleading!?
I have actually changed the gas limit for all my transactions to be '50,000', but it always shows 121,000'???

@alexvandesande
Copy link

All transactions have hashes, even if they are never put on the blockchain. It wipes out a transaction that goes unconfirmed for a long time, yes.

It usually only shows "gas used" after the inclusion. If you click on the blue transaction hash link where does it take you?
screen shot 2018-03-23 at 4 50 42 pm

@Kuan5485
Copy link
Author

Kuan5485 commented Mar 25, 2018

@alexvandesande

It wipes out?
Then why like this? A week already the two invalid transaction (2nd Txn in 17th Mar and the only txn in 20th Mar) are still there.
The System/Ethereum Wallet should remove invalid txn from the display so that user will not get confused
image

Clicking the link will open the etherscan with that tx.hash
As following:
image

For "gas used" bug
As shown below
image
That's from invalid txn but the summary seems like fee has been paid

@evertonfraga
Copy link
Member

So even if there's a 'tx hash' for reference, the txn could be an invalid one?

Even if there's a txn hash, it does not mean it got included in a block.

@Kuan5485
Copy link
Author

@evertonfraga

Thanks for the answer
I guess the title of this issue should be changed to something related to the following?

  1. [Bug] For invalid txn, "Fee paid" and "Gas used" are not 0
  2. [Bug] "Fee paid" and "Gas used" amounts are incorrect, used "21,000 GAS/0.000021 ETH" but shows "121,000 GAS/0.000121"
  3. [Improvement] Invalid transaction should not appear in the list of Latest Transactions as that misleads user to think that it's still there

Please advise

@microftech65
Copy link

gnosis / verify-on-etherscan
verify-on-etherscan/package.json
microftech65 1.2.1
{
"name": "verify-on-etherscan",
"version": "1.2.1",
"description": "Automates verification on etherscan.io of ethereum contracts that are compiled and deployed with truffle",
"keywords": [
"verify",
"ethereum",
"contracts",
"etherscan",
"truffle"
],
"main": "src/index.js",
"bin": {
"verify-on-etherscan": "bin/verify-cli.js",
"voeth": "bin/verify-cli.js"
},
"files": [
"src//*",
"truffle-plugin.json"
],
"scripts": {
"lint": "eslint '
/.js' --ignore-path .gitignore",
"format": "prettier --write '**/
.js'",
"prep-test": "cd ./truffle-test-example && npm install ; cd ..",
"test": "jest"
},
"author": "Duchess B Breinstein",
"license": "MIT",
"dependencies": {
"fs-extra": "^8.1.0",
"node-fetch": "^2.6.0",
"truffle-flattener": "^1.4.2",
"web3": "^1.2.1",
"yargs": "^14.0.0"
},
"devDependencies": {
"eslint": "^6.2.2",
"eslint-config-airbnb": "^18.0.1",
"eslint-config-prettier": "^6.1.0",
"eslint-plugin-import": "^2.18.2",
"eslint-plugin-jest": "^22.16.0",
"eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y": "^6.2.3",
"eslint-plugin-node": "^9.2.0",
"eslint-plugin-prettier": "^3.1.0",
"eslint-plugin-react": "^7.14.3",
"ganache-cli": "6.6.0",
"jest": "^24.9.0",
"prettier": "^1.18.2"
},
"repository": {
"type": "git",
"url": "https://github.com/gnosis/verify-on-etherscan.git"
},
"bugs": {
"url": "https://github.com/gnosis/verify-on-etherscan/issues"
}
}
Copyright© 2018-2045 QDRBTCPSJBDCSC-SOLIDITY-SMART-CONTRACT.™
All Rights Reserved.

@PhilippLgh PhilippLgh removed their assignment Mar 26, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants
@evertonfraga @alexvandesande @PhilippLgh @Kuan5485 @microftech65 and others