5

I found that some operations have more money transfers that are actually included in the explorer, can somebody explain why?

This operation for example have the following JSON:

{
  "protocol": "PsddFKi32cMJ2qPjf43Qv5GDWLDPZb3T3bF6fLKiF5HtvHNU7aP",
  "chain_id": "NetXdQprcVkpaWU",
  "hash": "onmqJCqzWtnqKii9oJkkoXeNdm1dX9UZVaH3U6LMKaGoBjWATgH",
  "branch": "BLakrK2ZhRXb14WBuEAyKMzDdkLq4rz5pSUiB78wXRKnvS3nDnA",
  "contents": [
    {
      "kind": "transaction",
      "source": "KT1RXmLjL8WQz248EFNTB57Nvvy4mgVsdWHp",
      "fee": "1420",
      "counter": "1961",
      "gas_limit": "10300",
      "storage_limit": "300",
      "amount": "325200000",
      "destination": "tz1PLFqDRnDGfPYqjQZFc1dporoB5Z6o61y1",
      "metadata": {
        "balance_updates": [
          {
            "kind": "contract",
            "contract": "KT1RXmLjL8WQz248EFNTB57Nvvy4mgVsdWHp",
            "change": "-1420"
          },
          {
            "kind": "freezer",
            "category": "fees",
            "delegate": "tz1Yju7jmmsaUiG9qQLoYv35v5pHgnWoLWbt",
            "level": 67,
            "change": "1420"
          }
        ],
        "operation_result": {
          "status": "applied",
          "balance_updates": [
            {
              "kind": "contract",
              "contract": "KT1RXmLjL8WQz248EFNTB57Nvvy4mgVsdWHp",
              "change": "-325200000"
            },
            {
              "kind": "contract",
              "contract": "tz1PLFqDRnDGfPYqjQZFc1dporoB5Z6o61y1",
              "change": "325200000"
            },
            {
              "kind": "contract",
              "contract": "KT1RXmLjL8WQz248EFNTB57Nvvy4mgVsdWHp",
              "change": "-257000"
            }
          ],
          "consumed_gas": "10100",
          "allocated_destination_contract": true
        }
      }
    }
  ],
  "signature": "sigQCaGncaXLWkCbSu6HxfKucDDHAFFERnxiDJ7s4iB21wqH8enJZYcSCR1ivsLSczE8a3Y5GDUVKCbJyCUm9iSpsLmqcRH3"
}

Everything looks fine, however, in operation_result, there are three transfers:

KT1RXmLjL8WQz248EFNTB57Nvvy4mgVsdWHp -325200000 tz1PLFqDRnDGfPYqjQZFc1dporoB5Z6o61y1 +325200000 KT1RXmLjL8WQz248EFNTB57Nvvy4mgVsdWHp -257000

Fees separately.

Why this -257000 transfer is missing in balance calculation?

I checked some other explorers - they have same trait.

Any reason why?

How to distinguish this ghost transfers that do not happen?

2

That 257000 µꜩ is "origination burn". Simply put, when creating(or transferring to) a new address, there is a cost and the current value is 257000 µꜩ. Since this is a "burn", it's actually a deflation as no one is the recipient. This burn is mostly to prevent spamming. Creating a KT address has always had such requirement, but for tz address, this is introduced in the protocol 3 update.

2
  • Just to clarify, does it means that money actually taken from source account? Because, blockchain explores simply ignore this "burn" and do not update original balance accordingly.
    – Oleg Liski
    May 21 '19 at 13:59
  • 1
    Yes, in this case, if you look at the json you posted, it has a -257000 off of the KT address which is the source address. I'm not sure why the explorer is ignoring the balance change because it should get deducted.
    – Frank
    May 21 '19 at 14:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.