The block took its time and nothing was wrong
Mars market mirrors
marshjhtog245vzjzcicnmv2ci6yljibvdm4pngq5kmkfvcutppboxad.onion
marsiujka6lrsaqpnxiwvknthhzsrlmq77mnl2fi62guc4lwxif65syd.onion
marsmtbwtxkohhpu34m4jkwcntian7n257wsex5tbkmsjdjrsz6me3yd.onion
Printed as supplied, in no order. Nothing here is watched or timed, so an address that opens is not proof of anything. More about the set
A transfer sits unconfirmed for longer than expected. Nothing on any screen explains it. The wallet gets blamed, or the market, or a suspicion that the transfer went nowhere.
Blocks arrive at intervals that vary. There is a target average and individual gaps scatter around it, sometimes widely. A long gap is not a symptom of anything.
- Responsible
- Nobody. Block timing is random around a target and a long interval is an ordinary sample.
- Usually blamed on
- The wallet, the market, or the reader own transfer, which is assumed to have failed somehow.
- What follows
- Patience, with the specific knowledge that nothing is broken. That knowledge is what stops the second transfer.
Average is not schedule
People hear a target interval and hear a timetable. It is not one. The process that produces blocks has no memory and no queue. Each attempt is independent, which means gaps sometimes run long for no reason that could be reported anywhere.
The consequence is that waiting twice the usual interval is unremarkable and needs no explanation. There is nothing to look up and nobody to ask, because nothing has gone wrong.
What the reader can actually verify
| Question | Answerable |
|---|---|
| The transaction exists and was broadcast | Yes, and this is the fact worth having |
| It went to the address that was displayed | Yes, if the address was copied at the time |
| When the next block will arrive | No. Nobody knows this, including everybody who sounds certain |
| Whether the market has looked yet | No, and that is a separate matter entirely |
The two answerable rows are enough to act on. The two unanswerable ones are where the anxiety lives, and no amount of refreshing converts one into the other.
Where the confusion with the market comes from
Because the two waits are stacked. First the chain has to confirm, then the market has to notice. A reader watching one number tick slowly does not know which of the two waits they are in, and blames whichever is more available.
The market side of the same delay is on its own page, and it is a genuine market responsibility. This page is only about the part before that, where the chain itself is simply taking its time.
What follows from getting it right
The single practical outcome is that no second transfer happens. That is worth the whole page, because a second transfer sent out of impatience is the most expensive thing on this site and it cannot be undone.
The secondary outcome is a more accurate model. Randomness with a target average is a shape that shows up in several places in this subject, and somebody who has understood it once stops needing an explanation for every long gap they meet.
When it stops being this case
There is a boundary and it should be stated. A transfer that has never been seen by the network at all is not a slow block. That is a broadcast problem, it sits with your own wallet or your own connection, and it is a different case with a different fix.
The distinction is easy to make. If the transaction can be found by anybody other than your wallet, it was broadcast and you are waiting on a block. If nothing outside your own software knows it exists, it never went anywhere, and no amount of waiting will change that.
Make that check first, once. Then the rest of this page applies and waiting is genuinely the right thing to do.