I've lost 0.26 btc due to a blockchain issue for over a year

So, the blockchain just voided my transaction of 0.26 btc after leaving it hanging for more than a year. Now, I can't even see it in my wallet. The transaction ID is 342326dcc3b724d6ada90ef65cfbac7a5c61666a8ae7fb7b5dd2683551299f9b. Is there anyone who knows how I can get my bitcoins back?

"The blockchain" doesn't do this, your transaction has never been on the blockchain. It's been in mempool, and dropped out because of the 1.00 sat/vbyte transaction fee. Some nodes still have it in their mempool. Question 1: who sent this transaction? I don't mean the name of a person, but is it a service or someone you know? Or did you create this consolidation transaction by yourself? Question 2: what (receiving) wallet do you use? This can help do CPFP. Mempool.space gives the option to accelerate your transaction for $161 (or less, if you customize the fee). That's probably the easiest solution, but there are more (and cheaper) options depending on your answers to the above questions. Note that I'm not recommending to use paid accelerators, I've never used them so use at your own risk.

As far as the MEMPOOL is concerned that transaction will never get confirmed. The fact is no miner will waste hash rate to confirm a transaction with fees as low as that.  Why would anyone make use of 1sat / byte as a transaction fees even with that weight of transaction. The transaction Is still questionable by me because it has soo many inputs with one invalid output. The person who broadcast that transaction purposefully made use of 1 sat/byte because no wallet will pick a fee as low as that by default except you adjust it plus if you use something like ELECTRUM you will be warned that the fee is way too low.

This has nothing to do with hashrate, and everything to do with the fact that other transactions are paying a higher fee (per vbyte). What makes you say the output is invalid?

He might be talking about the legacy address included "1KW4GT3uNbpYW1aQswC2c6sFT8ws2zP1ZC" I don't think it's invalid; the owner or him might have mixed BTC addresses on the wallet segwit and legacy. @OP This transaction is using 1sat/vb; this is the reason why it stuck and was rejected by the mempool. I heard that minrelaytxfee is around 4sat/vb so I don't think if you process this transaction again, you will receive it since it was stuck at 1sat/vb. If you own all of these wallets and are planning to consolidate them, just like mentioned above, you need to recreate the transaction with a higher TX fee, but if you don't own those addresses, then my suggestion is to try to rebroadcast the transaction. I got the raw hex of that TXID. I just did rebroadcast it recently, so it might appear again in your wallet. If you are using Electrum wallet, once it appears again on transaction history, you can do the CPFP as suggested above and increase the TX fee. I guess around 8sat/vb would be enough to cover the fees of the parent transaction.

Well it seems you don't get my point. Mining requires hash rates right? If that's correct then basically speaking miners require hash rates via their wares to confirm transactions by verifying the POW. If that's the case then miners would consider it a waste of hash rate to verify a transaction with a fee rate as low as one sat per byte when average fee rate is mostly 6 sat/bytes. When I looked up the transaction on blockchair explorer it had 2 outputs and the second had an invalid tag attached to it. You can check to see for yourself.

Wallet? Transactions are included in the blockchain by miners, not wallets. And the fee is 1 sat/vbyte, not 1 sat/byte. No, that wouldn't be enough. To get confirmation, OP should increase the effective fee rate to around 2 sat/vbyte and for achieving that, he would need to use the fee rate of around 65 sat/vbyte for the child transaction. The transaction in question has only 1 output which is assosiated with 32iTHyYhDAvSjH1kgyh4UQhLQmTx24X2cb. To OP: If you are the sender, you can make a new transaction. If your wallet doesn't allow that for any reason, the problem is with your wallet. Import your wallet into a new software like electrum and make a new transaction. This time with higher fee. If you are the recevier, you should import your wallet into a software that allow spending unconfirmed coins and do CPFP.

Are we looking for errors here or we are trying to make a point because I think you meant by miners actually and not but miners. Plus I never wrote or explained that wallet include transactions. My point is wallet that automatically choose fee rates for you will never make use of such a fee rate not because it's not feasible but because of the depth the transaction will be placed in the MEMPOOL. The transaction is in a category of NO PRIORITY in contrast to LOW PRIORITY on the memepool. Plus nodes broadcast transactions not necessarily miners thats why you have to be connected to a node to broadcast a transaction however it just so happens that all miners run nodes. Re checked and found I was wrong here.

I wrote "but" instead of "by" and it was clearly a typo. I edited that even before your reply. Mia Chloe, we are posting on "Bitcoin Technical Support" and wrong statements can confuse the OP. Also, some people may find this thread in the future via search engines like google. So, we should try to make accurate statements, so that they don't get confused. So, I misunderstood you.

Your node or your wallet's server just dropped it from its mempool. Fortunately, the transaction is still in Blockchain's API (note: it's not THE Bitcoin blockchain, it's a company) despite having dropped from their mempool(s) It seem to be available in mempool.space blockexplorer as well. And I'm getting "allowed: true" with testmempoolaccept command so, the inputs are still unspent and follows my node's rules. So, you can easily re-broadcast it with the signed raw transactions in the links above. Copy the long string of hex characters in any of the link above, paste it in a "push transaction" service like: https://blockstream.info/tx/push or blockchain.com/explorer/assets/btc/broadcast-transaction and click "Broadcast". You should do it in your wallet if it has a "broadcast" feature. However, since its fee rate is 1sat/vB, you should consider bumping it via "CPFP" (Child Pays for Parent) right away before the average fee goes high again. If your wallet can't do it, restore your seed phrase to a wallet that supports CPFP.

Thanks for all your answers, LoyceV, Mia Chloe, BitMaxz, mansseinimr93, nc50lc I've studied all your answers, BitMaxz: I don't quite understand what you're saying about having retransmitted TXID, but my wallet still shows that the transaction is pending and my balance is at 0.000000 hosseinimr93: I use "Bitcoin core" as a wallet and I have a full node with this wallet, I don't know how to do CPFP nc50lc: I don't know how to switch from Bitcoin core to another wallet and be able to do CPFP, I suppose that in Bitcoin core there must be a way to do this, but I can't find that way Does anyone know how to do CPFP in Bitcoin core? Thank you all very much

CPFP is basically just using an unconfirmed input in a new transaction. Bitcoin Core doesn't allow to use unconfirmed inputs (other than it's own change) from the GUI, but it should be possible from the command line. I can't tell you how exactly though.

So you're using Bitcoin Core (I could've posted a very specific instructions if this info is available from the start) You can only do that by manually creating a transaction via createpsbt/createrawtransaction, I'd like take the time to post the steps but the sender already spent one of the input of that dropped transaction with 91sat/vB fee and already mined with 63 confirmations. (Approx 9 hours ago) Because of that, you wont be able to re-broadcast it since it's now invalid by spending an already spent input. Despite having the same output, the amount is only a fraction of the intended amount. (or is this you, and you're the sender?) If you're not the sender, what you need to do is to contact him, there nothing else you can do in this case. There's a chance that it's unintentional because it could've been dropped from his node as well, so that UTXO was picked by his wallet after abandoning the dropped transaction. But based from the outrageous fee rate that he used, there's a possibility that it may be intentional.

That would be my guess. OP's transaction was dropped, then showed up on more block explorers, probably because someone re-broadcasted it. Which means the sender's wallet, that may have dropped it earlier, showed it again, and he replaced the transaction. Otherwise it's a very large coincidence this happens 9 months after the transaction was created, and only days after OP posts about it. So we're back to this:

Or the sender (if not OP) found this thread just a few hours ago. Either way, OP can't do anything about it if he not the sender. Note: Sending that kind of replacement requires a little technical knowledge on how bitcoin and bitcoin wallets work since mostly all wallets with rbf-related GUI feature doesn't have the ability to reduce the amount of input used in the original transaction. And it's actually easier if the spend transaction isn't in the sender's node/wallet (not rebroadcasted yet) since he can just "abandon" it and use "coin-control" to select that specific input. If re-broadcasted, he'll have to either manually drop it from his mempool or manually create a transaction via createpsbt / createrawtransaction The question is, in case of a malicious sender: He got all the time in the world to replace it, why wait now? Perhaps it's OP's failed attempt to CPFP while he's the actually sender, let's wait for his reply.

Malicious sender? No, I don't think so. In the replacement transaction, the fund was sent to the same address as the receiving address of the original transacion (32iTHyYhDAvSjH1kgyh4UQhLQmTx24X2cb).

Good point, I didn't check that. It looks like it was sent in 17 separate transactions, and the total is indeed 0.26 BTC.

I already pointed that out in my other reply. Here (that time, only one input from the original transaction was spent): Plus those are all "in case" scenarios since OP isn't providing enough information for us to paint the whole picture. If OP wont reply, let's just assume that he's also the sender (self-transfer) and he managed to replace it from his sender wallet with that 1in-1out transaction freeing the other inputs.

Many thanks to everyone, thanks to you and the AI ​​I managed to do CPFP and this caused the invalidation of the transaction that was blocked for a year waiting for a miner to take it, and thanks to having the patience to wait a year I have earned a few more euros by selling the btc, since bitcoin has risen a lot in this last year. I'm explaining what I've done so that if someone else has this problem, they can find it here HOW TO MAKE A CPFP (Child Pays for Parent) USING THE BICOIN CORE WALLET If we have a child transaction (T_SON) that doesn't progress in the mempool, we must take any parent transaction (T_FATHER) and create a new one (T_NEW) Example: READ THE PARENT TRANSACTION #> gettransaction T_FATHER { "amount": Y, ... "txid": "T_FATHER", ... "vout": X } ], ... CREATE A NEW TRANSACTION #> createrawtransaction '[{"txid": "T_NEW", "vout": X}]' '{"ID_WALLET_DESTINATION": Y-fee}' 020000000 ... XXX ... 00000000 IMPORTANT NOTE: calculate the fee correctly or it will be blocked again. Y-fee is the amount minus the fee ENTER KEY TO UNLOCK WALLET #> walletpassphrase "passphrase" timeout WE SIGN THE TRANSACTION: #> signrawtransactionwithwallet "020000000 ... XXX ... 00000000" { "hex": "02000000000 ... XXX ... fab00000000", "complete": true } WE SEND TRANSACTION sendrawtransaction "02000000000 ... XXX ... fab00000000", From here on, if we have valued the fee correctly, the transaction T_FATHER will be cancelled as soon as T_NEW is included in the blockchain Greetings to all, thank you very much and this thread can be finished

You did RBF (Replace By Fee), not CPFP (Child Pays For Parent).