listtransactions results order unkown #17739

The problem is that I don't really know which is the order of listtransactions result.

The documentation doesn't say anything about this,

I don't know the answer but if someone does please tell me and maybe some dev could include it

Is ordered by confirmations? By timereceived? both?

Hi @mrbabtc, good question. I could be wrong but I think they are ordered by transaction timereceived (which is the same as time for sent transactions).

It could probably be made a bit more clear, but here is some explanation:

In wallet/wallet.cpp::3430 there are details on the timestamp for transactions added to the wallet, and a couple of links. See https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=54527 and #1393.

/**
 * Compute smart timestamp for a transaction being added to the wallet.
 *
 * Logic:
 * - If sending a transaction, assign its timestamp to the current time.
 * - If receiving a transaction outside a block, assign its timestamp to the
 *   current time.
 * - If receiving a block with a future timestamp, assign all its (not already
 *   known) transactions' timestamps to the current time.
 * - If receiving a block with a past timestamp, before the most recent known
 *   transaction (that we care about), assign all its (not already known)
 *   transactions' timestamps to the same timestamp as that most-recent-known
 *   transaction.
 * - If receiving a block with a past timestamp, but after the most recent known
 *   transaction, assign all its (not already known) transactions' timestamps to
 *   the block time.
 *
 * For more information see CWalletTx::nTimeSmart,
 * https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=54527, or
 * [#1393](/bitcoin-bitcoin/1393/).
 */
unsigned int CWallet::ComputeTimeSmart(const CWalletTx& wtx) const
{
    unsigned int nTimeSmart = wtx.nTimeReceived;
    if (!wtx.isUnconfirmed() && !wtx.isAbandoned()) {
        int64_t blocktime;
        if (chain().findBlock(wtx.m_confirm.hashBlock, nullptr /* block */, &blocktime)) {
            int64_t latestNow = wtx.nTimeReceived;

Hi @mrbabtc, good question. I could be wrong but I think they are ordered by transaction timereceived (which is the same as time for sent transactions).

It could probably be made a bit more clear, but here is some explanation:

In wallet/wallet.cpp::3430 there are details on the timestamp for transactions added to the wallet, and a couple of links. See https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=54527 and #1393.

/**
 * Compute smart timestamp for a transaction being added to the wallet.
 *
 * Logic:
 * - If sending a transaction, assign its timestamp to the current time.
 * - If receiving a transaction outside a block, assign its timestamp to the
 *   current time.
 * - If receiving a block with a future timestamp, assign all its (not already
 *   known) transactions' timestamps to the current time.
 * - If receiving a block with a past timestamp, before the most recent known
 *   transaction (that we care about), assign all its (not already known)
 *   transactions' timestamps to the same timestamp as that most-recent-known
 *   transaction.
 * - If receiving a block with a past timestamp, but after the most recent known
 *   transaction, assign all its (not already known) transactions' timestamps to
 *   the block time.
 *
 * For more information see CWalletTx::nTimeSmart,
 * https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=54527, or
 * [#1393](/bitcoin-bitcoin/1393/).
 */
unsigned int CWallet::ComputeTimeSmart(const CWalletTx& wtx) const
{
    unsigned int nTimeSmart = wtx.nTimeReceived;
    if (!wtx.isUnconfirmed() && !wtx.isAbandoned()) {
        int64_t blocktime;
        if (chain().findBlock(wtx.m_confirm.hashBlock, nullptr /* block */, &blocktime)) {
            int64_t latestNow = wtx.nTimeReceived;

Thanks. I mounted a regtest local and I played with wallets closing and opening erasing mempool.dat. Is a fact that isn't ordered by confirmations numbers, and hight probably that is ordered by timereceived

After testing scenarios I can confirm that is ordered by timereceived without any another criteria (even transactions with less confirmations are shown first)

10:05:03

listtransactions "*" 10 0 true


10:05:03

[
  {
    "address": "bcrt1qkxyysf7sjx2znx5wj0jzygtad3atfuze29w3y6",
    "category": "receive",
    "amount": 1.00000000,
    "label": "",
    "vout": 0,
    "confirmations": 0,
    "trusted": false,
    "txid": "aede2bbe1f1fcd2002428d26f04a4ff0d67d37973496b2c2810916cc8567ad1f",
    "walletconflicts": [
    ],
    "time": 1576242237,
    "timereceived": 1576242237,
    "bip125-replaceable": "yes"
  },
  {
    "involvesWatchonly": true,
    "address": "bcrt1q4xx03keh8u88zyaa8p96tr54nzarmj5gghfu6f",
    "category": "receive",
    "amount": 0.10000000,
    "label": "",
    "vout": 0,
    "confirmations": 16,
    "blockhash": "133cefc923308ff7a15951a37891edb774ef269aa0c18468f2d32e8819418263",
    "blockindex": 1,
    "blocktime": 1576240732,
    "txid": "54c348447c2a59a1b052a13ffd9ecae6dc0262fe78e24956f6cb491243c33458",
    "walletconflicts": [
    ],
    "time": 1576242237,
    "timereceived": 1576242259,
    "bip125-replaceable": "no"
  },
  {
    "involvesWatchonly": true,
    "address": "bcrt1q7y7k6pqsaghf2lhvmne4zvsfpwcz6rau54mqr6",
    "category": "receive",
    "amount": 0.10000000,
    "label": "",
    "vout": 1,
    "confirmations": 10,
    "blockhash": "55beb45de2a2a66fa2226b4df5fceaee8ac16d0da830b8c8dcf649d7ba51d2fc",
    "blockindex": 1,
    "blocktime": 1576241544,
    "txid": "ca05a929516720bd1fb30ff1f96219191567ddae19d7057d5e048cca4233620f",
    "walletconflicts": [
    ],
    "time": 1576242237,
    "timereceived": 1576242259,
    "bip125-replaceable": "no"
  }
]

Thanks @mrbabtc. I'll update the listtransactions help and code documentation to make this clearer and check the current tests to see if this is tested, and if not, perhaps add a test.

Hi , If this is considered important, I can "work" on it. What kind of documentation needs to be updated ? The RPCHelp ? Source code documentation / doxygen ? All of them ?

Hello! Is this issue up for grab?  Also, if it is, could someone help specify what kind of documentation has to be updated?

I'd love to get started on this.

Hi, Is this issue still open? Then I would like to work on it.

This issue is unlikely to be fixed in Bitcoin Core. We'll close for now, but feel free to open another issue or pull request with a fix.