pull down to refresh

100 sats \ 5 replies \ @ek 1 Nov 2022 \ on: LN shinanigans. bitcoin
I am still confused by such transactions. Did someone really pay 3.682.719 sats just for this message since it shows up as fees? But he could have just created another UTXO which sends some amount back to his wallet? I only see one UTXO which is the OP_RETURN.
write
preview
25 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 1 Nov 2022
This is the tx that broke lnd today. It was pretty large and they likely contacted the miner out-of-band to get it in, and at that point likely locked in a high fee rate.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 1 Nov 2022
Is 500.14kB really that large? And I thought it's just about the fee rate which is 29.4sat/vB. But looking at the mempool, I see that 29.4sat/vB is not unheard of.
So I guess it makes sense that someone would pay this rate which then results in 3M sats for a transaction this size.
Edit:
Okay, yeah, 500kB is large. It's half a block, lol. (Quarter when accounting for SegWit)
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @02947a7fb5 OP 3 Nov 2022
This isnT a “normal” transaction. The 3M+ sats was for a specific miner and the service fee to push out such a tx.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 3 Nov 2022
Why specific miner? Wouldn't any miner mine this with such large fees?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @02947a7fb5 OP 4 Nov 2022
Can’t remember which miner has a service that allows for non standard transactions to be included in their blocks. Not all mining pools do this sort of thing.
reply