you can use "Child-pays-for-parent" if you are either sender/receiver.

otherwise you can use paid transaction accelerator service from:
https://pushtx.btc.com
https://pool.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/
https://pushtx.com/

They charge reasonably high amount like  10%-15% of transaction amount.
I will be rolling out my own paid & "cheap" transaction accelerator service if there are more people who needs this service.

Solo mining would only work for this enterprise if he spent millions in hardware and runs a mining farm that has a total hashrate on par with the biggest mining pools... I'd be surprised if this was the case.

An other option is if he has a deal with one of the biggest mining pools, but in this case i'd expect them to confirm they have a deal with user cajancharles

Collaboration with large mining pools

Thank you, I'll try to contact them.

---

Thanks! I will try to contact him as well

---

Yep, I know that


Yes, I saw that...



Thank you both for the suggestion... Let's see how this works...

---

You are most likely right. I also hesitated before posting it here. I posted it here because I saw similar threads from the past in this section. Should I move it to Mining section...?

The two cases are different. The link here was a non-standard but high fee transaction which needed manual submission to be mined but yours is a standard low fee transaction that doesn't give enough incentive for miners to pick it up.

- Yes. Specially since their mempool grows and they end up dropping the low fee transactions then the same inputs can be spent again with a higher fee. Otherwise you can re-broadcast this forever until it confirms.
- Considering that it is paying about 3.6 satoshi/byte then yes it is possible that at some point when fees drop to 1 this tx would be picked up by any miner.

You have one other option:

Use coin control, select to spend from the unconfirmed transaction, create another transaction with higher fees, and broadcast that.  Currently mempool is averaging about 110 sats per byte, if you set your child transaction to about 200 sats per byte you're looking at a fee of 0.000384.  That's about $18 USD at the moment.

Unfortunately I can't do that... I am the receiver, not the sender. And the sender used Blockchain.com for sending funds. I don't even know if this wallet allows you to have your private keys (I remember that in the past you did not have access to them) and even if now you can access the private keys, I doubt the sender would export them, import them in Electrum and then perform all this operation...

---

As I wrote above, the sender used Blockchain.com wallet, and this is not a node itself... In this case do you think it;s possible for the sender to see the funds again in the wallet after some time? And if so, how long this time can be? The transaction was made 16 days ago and still, the coins are not shown again in the sender's wallet.


Only if I could do that... but I can;t, as I am not in control of the sender's wallet... What I don;t understand though is this: if there is a chance for the network to forget the transaction then how can it be processed if the fees drop...? These two ideas seem to contradict one another. At least, this is what I understand: so, if I wait for fees to drop, the transaction will eventually be processed. But this implies that it won't be forgotten by the network, yes? And the opposite: if it gets forgotten, then it will never be processed, no matter if the fees drop... Am I missing something here...?

I don't think blockchain.come rebroadcasts the transactions on its own but I don't use it so I can't be sure. That means the funds should be back in the sender's wallet and they should be able to spend them again.
But also it is possible that as soon as user logs into their account and the wallet sees there is an unconfirmed tx that doesn't exist in the mempool it could resend that tx again.

About "forgetting":
The default behavior of majority of them is to either drop transactions that didn't confirm in 14 days or drop transactions that have lowest fees when they run out of memory (the defined mempool size).
But since the network is decentralized and there are lots of bitcoin nodes with lots of different options there is always a chance that some nodes somewhere still keep the transaction in their mempool and propagate it when any node connects to them and asks for a list of txs in their mempool.

But you are correct, if the network "forgets" about that transaction (which is usually the case when fees are constantly rising) then that tx won't confirm since it won't exist when the fees drop and user has to manually create a new one or resend the same tx.

Blockchain.com shows the time it last "received" a transaction... currently, your transaction is showing with a datetime received (in UTC) of:

BTC.com doesn't have it
Blockchair says: Time (UTC) 2021-01-30 16:01(18 days ago)
Blockcypher doesn't have it
Blockstream.info doesn't have it

and my local node here doesn't have it either:

I suspect that blockchain.com rebroadcasts transactions... at least to it's own mempool... but the transaction is not currently "well propagated". Given that most nodes seem to have dropped this transaction, the odds of it being confirmed in a block are actually relatively poor.

Indeed... it seems that your transaction has been a "victim" of the "mempool min fee":

Given the massive uptick in activity with breaking the $50k barrier etc... it seems that transactions below 4 sats/byte (!!?! ) are being "purged": https://statoshi.info/d/000000020/memory-pool?orgId=1