<p>That's pretty common. What happens is that the chain forks for whatever reason and some miners are on each side of the fork. They will both have your transaction in their transaction pool and so eventually include it in a block. So your transaction ends up on each fork.</p>

<p>Ultimately it doesn't matter though as the network will eventually agree on which fork is correct.</p>

<p>Note that recently, testnet has been pretty unmanageable, with regular difficulty resets creating situations where 100s of blocks get created per minute. This creates a lot of chain forks and some can be really long, like in your case. Also due to the high number of forks, some nodes may not have learned about a given block/fork at all if it ended up "losing".</p>

<p>On the mainnet, forks are somewhat infrequent (couple daily) and much shorter (very rarerly more than a block).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-25T23:37:22.543Z
2015-05-25T23:37:22.543Z
Matthieu
<p>Chain.com
<a href="http://explorer.chain.com/transactions/a4bfb8e21ae3d6232183dfb8ef5fcee8c9b8f223c2d25738e24765a75abd009b" rel="nofollow">http://explorer.chain.com/transactions/a4bfb8e21ae3d6232183dfb8ef5fcee8c9b8f223c2d25738e24765a75abd009b</a></p>

<p>Chain.so
<a href="https://chain.so/tx/BTCTEST/a4bfb8e21ae3d6232183dfb8ef5fcee8c9b8f223c2d25738e24765a75abd009b" rel="nofollow">https://chain.so/tx/BTCTEST/a4bfb8e21ae3d6232183dfb8ef5fcee8c9b8f223c2d25738e24765a75abd009b</a></p>

<p>hash of the transaction
a4bfb8e21ae3d6232183dfb8ef5fcee8c9b8f223c2d25738e24765a75abd009b</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-25T18:58:05.030Z
Odd. Chain explorer doesn't seem to have any record of block `891a17...` at all.
Nick ODell
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-25T20:11:32.667Z
Possibly they are on two different forks?
Nate Eldredge
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-25T20:18:45.237Z
I submitted to only one using blockcypher.com API
Igor Barinov
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-25T20:23:34.920Z
May be Blockcypher submitted to two forks same transaction?
Igor Barinov
<blockchain><testnet>
Why the same confirmed transaction in the Testnet has different block hash and other fields?
Igor Barinov
# Why the same confirmed transaction in the Testnet has different block hash and other fields?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-05-25)

Chain.com
<http://explorer.chain.com/transactions/a4bfb8e21ae3d6232183dfb8ef5fcee8c9b8f223c2d25738e24765a75abd009b>

Chain.so
<https://chain.so/tx/BTCTEST/a4bfb8e21ae3d6232183dfb8ef5fcee8c9b8f223c2d25738e24765a75abd009b>

hash of the transaction
a4bfb8e21ae3d6232183dfb8ef5fcee8c9b8f223c2d25738e24765a75abd009b

**Tags:** blockchain, testnet

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Odd. Chain explorer doesn't seem to have any record of block `891a17...` at all.  
> **username_2**: Possibly they are on two different forks?  
> **username_0**: I submitted to only one using blockcypher.com API  
> **username_0**: May be Blockcypher submitted to two forks same transaction?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2015-05-25. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

That's pretty common. What happens is that the chain forks for whatever reason and some miners are on each side of the fork. They will both have your transaction in their transaction pool and so eventually include it in a block. So your transaction ends up on each fork.

Ultimately it doesn't matter though as the network will eventually agree on which fork is correct.

Note that recently, testnet has been pretty unmanageable, with regular difficulty resets creating situations where 100s of blocks get created per minute. This creates a lot of chain forks and some can be really long, like in your case. Also due to the high number of forks, some nodes may not have learned about a given block/fork at all if it ended up "losing".

On the mainnet, forks are somewhat infrequent (couple daily) and much shorter (very rarerly more than a block).


---

