<p>Only valid transactions transfer control of balances. Since the transaction was never completed, the balances remain under control of the original owners.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T19:52:09.237Z
2016-06-06T19:52:09.237Z
Murch
<p>The transaction is not fully signed, so it will not be included in a block, and thus the coins will not be moved from where they are. Only what's in a block can move coins, and anything that causes a transaction to not verify will cause that transaction to not be included.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T19:52:47.127Z
2016-06-06T19:52:47.127Z
user36303
<p>voided as if it never was attempted  </p>

<p>assuming here you're spending from a multisig wallet and hence >1 parties need to sign. As @user36303 and @Murch♦ pointed out, if the TX is not fully signed, its not really a TX yet and the original balance on this multisig wallet is still the unspent balance.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-09T14:13:32.810Z
2016-06-09T14:13:32.810Z
kumarz
<p>It sounds like those two scenarios are the same thing.</p>

<p>If a transaction output requires two signatures to be spent, but one is never available, then the coins on that output aren't going to go anywhere.  This is just like where a transaction output only requires a single signature, but it isn't available.</p>

<p>However, this all depends on what type of multisig.  For example, if it's a 2-of-3 and one party refuses to sign, then the other two can spend the coins.  If it's a 2-of-2, then the coins are stuck.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T22:25:50.030Z
Do the "stuck" coins in the unsigned transaction count as spent (and therefore lost) or do they count as unspent?
gm3131
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T22:52:48.147Z
They are unspent.  In this scenario, there is no way to prove that they can never be spent.
Jestin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T22:57:41.703Z
If they were provably unspendable, would it make a difference?
gm3131
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T23:14:46.087Z
They would still be unspent, but the rest of the world would know those coins are dead.
Jestin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-07T00:56:01.643Z
Wouldn't they know the coins were dead when they were spent elsewhere after the multi sig transaction failed?
gm3131
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T20:43:42.677Z
2016-06-06T20:52:29.067Z
2016-06-06T20:52:29.067Z
Jestin
<p>In a multi-sig transaction, if one party refuses to sign, what happens to coins?  Are the coins forever lost, or is the transaction voided as if it never was attempted?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-12T08:56:02.890Z
A transaction that is not properly signed is not a valid transaction and thus no different from random junk data. Literally nothing happens.
David Schwartz
<multi-signature>
In a multi-sig transaction, if one party refuses to sign, what happens to coins?
gm3131
# In a multi-sig transaction, if one party refuses to sign, what happens to coins?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-06-06)

In a multi-sig transaction, if one party refuses to sign, what happens to coins? Are the coins forever lost, or is the transaction voided as if it never was attempted?

**Tags:** multi-signature

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: A transaction that is not properly signed is not a valid transaction and thus no different from random junk data. Literally nothing happens.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-06-06. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Only valid transactions transfer control of balances. Since the transaction was never completed, the balances remain under control of the original owners.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-06-06. Score: 2

The transaction is not fully signed, so it will not be included in a block, and thus the coins will not be moved from where they are. Only what's in a block can move coins, and anything that causes a transaction to not verify will cause that transaction to not be included.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-06-09. Score: 1

voided as if it never was attempted

assuming here you're spending from a multisig wallet and hence >1 parties need to sign. As @username_3 and @username_2♦ pointed out, if the TX is not fully signed, its not really a TX yet and the original balance on this multisig wallet is still the unspent balance.


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2016-06-06. Score: 0

It sounds like those two scenarios are the same thing.

If a transaction output requires two signatures to be spent, but one is never available, then the coins on that output aren't going to go anywhere. This is just like where a transaction output only requires a single signature, but it isn't available.

However, this all depends on what type of multisig. For example, if it's a 2-of-3 and one party refuses to sign, then the other two can spend the coins. If it's a 2-of-2, then the coins are stuck.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Do the "stuck" coins in the unsigned transaction count as spent (and therefore lost) or do they count as unspent?  
> **username_5**: They are unspent.  In this scenario, there is no way to prove that they can never be spent.  
> **username_0**: If they were provably unspendable, would it make a difference?  
> **username_5**: They would still be unspent, but the rest of the world would know those coins are dead.  
> **username_0**: Wouldn't they know the coins were dead when they were spent elsewhere after the multi sig transaction failed?  

---

