Crypto transaction discrepancies

  • Thread starter Thread starter indub
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around discrepancies in cryptocurrency transactions, specifically focusing on the tracking of cost basis for Ethereum trades. Participants explore issues related to transaction fees, the flow of funds between wallets, and the implications of failed transactions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a situation where the amount received in a Metamask wallet differs from the amount sent from Coinbase, raising questions about the missing .0006 ETH.
  • Another participant identifies that the missing ETH was due to a failed transaction that incurred a miner fee, suggesting that the transaction went through an intermediary address.
  • A third participant confirms that transaction fees are typically charged even if a transaction fails, but does not provide further details on the matter.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the cryptocurrency space, labeling it as inherently fraudulent and suggesting that the question may not be appropriate for the forum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that transaction fees apply even to failed transactions, but there is no consensus on the broader implications of cryptocurrency practices or the appropriateness of discussing such questions in the forum.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexities of tracking cryptocurrency transactions and the potential for confusion regarding fees and transaction flows. There are unresolved aspects regarding the implications of failed transactions and the overall trustworthiness of the cryptocurrency ecosystem.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in cryptocurrency trading, transaction tracking, and the implications of transaction fees may find this discussion relevant.

indub
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
Not sure where else to post this question. I'm trying to figure out how to accurately record some crypto trades in my spreadsheet to track my cost basis in more detail but I've noticed a possible issue between what actually is transacted vs what etherscan shows.

For example, from Coinbase I send .2298 ETH (which is the amount after the ETH fee is removed) to a Metamask wallet. The Metamask wallet receives .2287 after the Metamask ETH fee is removed. I would assume that adding the Metamask ETH fee onto .2287 would net the same .2298 sent from Coinbase but it doesn't, it comes to .2292. Where is the missing .0006 ETH going?

Only thing I can think of is Coinbase provides a transaction receipt with the actual value as the transaction occurs, which differs from the etherscan transaction recorded. Metamask does not provide a transaction receipt so I can only review the etherscan transaction. However, the amount of ETH received in Metamask correlates accurately with the etherscan transaction, which to me appears as if .0006 ETH have just disappeared.

Any help would be much appreciated!
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
I figured it out and probably need to contact Coinbase for further inquiry. All of my other ETH transfers from Coinbase to Metamask are correct, ETH always goes from a Coinbase address to my wallet. The strange transaction above goes from Coinbase to some other address, then to my wallet. Two separate etherscan transactions. That's where my other .0006 ETH went. It's actually listed as a failed transaction in the log at the bottom of the etherscan transaction listed in Metamask, and the miner fee is .0006 ETH! That brings up another question, if a transaction fails are we still on the hook for the miner fee?
 
As far as I remember reading, yes, if a transaction fails you still pay the transaction fees. I don't know the details to answer your other questions or comment them, sorry.
 
Sell it all and don't look back. The crypto“currency” space is inherently fraudulent because they're all multi-level marketing pyramid Ponzi schemes by default. One might want to listen to @milner_aviv's When The Music Stops podcast to learn why: .

“This is the singularly best podcast I've ever heard between a crypto skeptic and a believer. Milner Aviv really dives into a Socratic discussion about the central economic problem of negative-sum investment schemes.

Absolutely worth a listen.” —Stephen DiehlAlso, why ask this question on this forum?
 
Reply
  • Sad
Likes   Reactions: fluidistic

Similar threads

Have You Shopped with Your Credit Card in Foreign Country?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Programs Grad prospects of a current International Senior in HS
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
EQualityCoin- What type of model is this?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Modern Digital Audio: Understanding Dither and Oversampling in Hi-Res Age
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
Stargazing Level of details in prime focus vs eyepiece images
  • · Replies 226 ·
8
Replies
226
Views
16K
News Money is simply the traffic signals of economy
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
The Mojave Phone Booth Phenomenon
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Graduate Is Entanglement Swapping Driven by Post-Selection or Bell State Measurement?
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
9K
Graduate Degrees of freedom of thin rods
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Specific heat capacity coursework
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K