<p>Decoding your transaction shows an output:</p>

<pre><code>"vout": [
    {
      "value": 0.00000000,
      "n": 0,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "OP_RETURN 68656c6c6f5f776f726c64",
        "hex": "6a0b68656c6c6f5f776f726c64",
        "type": "nulldata"
      }
    }, ...
</code></pre>

<p>This might be the reason the miners won't touch it as it may be flagged as non-standard on older nodes. Notice the warning on blockcypher:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/QonJE.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/QonJE.png" alt="Non-standard"></a></p>

<p>Maybe someone can comment on exactly why, as these null_data transactions were made standard on Bitcoin-core <code>0.9.0</code>, see <a href="https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#null-data" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#null-data</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-31T04:25:55.053Z
I wondered about this possibility, but I thought the "standard" checks were disabled on testnet.  Also, what with the segwit soft fork, I don't think there could possibly be any miners running 0.9.0 or earlier.
Nate Eldredge
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-31T04:31:44.673Z
Yeah that's what I was thinking as well, it's curious. blockcypher states it is in 71 mempools at the moment, seems low to me.
JBaczuk
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-31T03:55:32.763Z
2018-08-31T04:23:12.617Z
2018-08-31T04:23:12.617Z
JBaczuk
<p>I'm also having problems with testnet which I have not seen before.  I'm thinking I may have changed something in my scripts but cannot see what it could be.  I'm using multi-sigs for most of the destination addresses  </p>

<p><a href="https://tchain.btc.com/2N16FGLa4YpTnCuby9xZT2T2q3rkAxfcX6Y" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://tchain.btc.com/2N16FGLa4YpTnCuby9xZT2T2q3rkAxfcX6Y</a>
<a href="https://tchain.btc.com/5cd81ee81ca48500edb78956aefa6f9f06074a7a7a234579313e5e40cb01b022" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://tchain.btc.com/5cd81ee81ca48500edb78956aefa6f9f06074a7a7a234579313e5e40cb01b022</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-01T19:09:05.130Z
2018-09-01T19:09:05.130Z
PeteG
<p>I have created a transaction with high miner's fee and it is now in mempool (in testnet):</p>

<p><a href="https://live.blockcypher.com/btc-testnet/tx/abcc4ce473f490896e87102fe3ffb857ff735a0fc97525dadf9c5b0ed5410f9f/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://live.blockcypher.com/btc-testnet/tx/abcc4ce473f490896e87102fe3ffb857ff735a0fc97525dadf9c5b0ed5410f9f/</a></p>

<p>However, it doesn't seem to be confirming. It's already missed two opportunities to confirm. Transactions with much lower miner's fees are going through instead.</p>

<p>Is Bitcoin this random or am I missing something?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-31T04:50:00.620Z
Another possible cause is that your transaction has an output which is [dust](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/10986/what-is-meant-by-bitcoin-dust), as do several of its ancestors (which are also still unconfirmed).  But I am not sure whether the dust rule is enforced by testnet nodes by default.
Nate Eldredge
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-31T13:41:45.797Z
It's confirmed now.
Nate Eldredge
<unconfirmed-transactions><testnet><confirmations>
Why do transactions take so long to confirm in testnet?
Hypertable2
# Why do transactions take so long to confirm in testnet?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-08-31)

I have created a transaction with high miner's fee and it is now in mempool (in testnet):

<https://live.blockcypher.com/btc-testnet/tx/abcc4ce473f490896e87102fe3ffb857ff735a0fc97525dadf9c5b0ed5410f9f/>

However, it doesn't seem to be confirming. It's already missed two opportunities to confirm. Transactions with much lower miner's fees are going through instead.

Is Bitcoin this random or am I missing something?

**Tags:** unconfirmed-transactions, testnet, confirmations

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Another possible cause is that your transaction has an output which is [dust](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/10986/what-is-meant-by-bitcoin-dust), as do several of its ancestors (which are also still unconfirmed).  But I am not sure whether the dust rule is enforced by testnet nodes by default.  
> **username_1**: It's confirmed now.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-08-31. Score: 1

Decoding your transaction shows an output:
"vout": [
    {
      "value": 0.00000000,
      "n": 0,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "OP_RETURN 68656c6c6f5f776f726c64",
        "hex": "6a0b68656c6c6f5f776f726c64",
        "type": "nulldata"
      }
    }, ...

This might be the reason the miners won't touch it as it may be flagged as non-standard on older nodes. Notice the warning on blockcypher:

Maybe someone can comment on exactly why, as these null_data transactions were made standard on Bitcoin-core 0.9.0, see https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#null-data

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I wondered about this possibility, but I thought the "standard" checks were disabled on testnet.  Also, what with the segwit soft fork, I don't think there could possibly be any miners running 0.9.0 or earlier.  
> **username_2**: Yeah that's what I was thinking as well, it's curious. blockcypher states it is in 71 mempools at the moment, seems low to me.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-09-01. Score: 0

I'm also having problems with testnet which I have not seen before. I'm thinking I may have changed something in my scripts but cannot see what it could be. I'm using multi-sigs for most of the destination addresses

<https://tchain.btc.com/2N16FGLa4YpTnCuby9xZT2T2q3rkAxfcX6Y>
<https://tchain.btc.com/5cd81ee81ca48500edb78956aefa6f9f06074a7a7a234579313e5e40cb01b022>


---

