"Error: Transaction was not mined within 750 seconds, please make sure your transaction was properly sent. Be aware that it might still be mined!"

Archive Support
1

Hello,

I have been running my dApp on matic for a few months now and have never encountered this error before. I can make view calls and return state from on-chain, but any time I send a transaction (including trying to deploy new contracts) I cannot. I have tried DeFi dapps I have funds in, I have tried the dApp I administrate, and I have tried deploying simple storage contracts. The code functions fine for dev and mumbai. I have used infura, quiknode, and matic vigil, all with the same effects. I am using truffle for my deployment suite, but metamask + ethers is unable to send transactions with my providers either.

Once again, error is “Error: Transaction was not mined within 750 seconds, please make sure your transaction was properly sent. Be aware that it might still be mined!”. I have tried setting gas to the matic block max (20000000) and allowing truffle to set it itself. Any insights greatly appreciated!

2

Update: now I am receiving
“Error: PollingBlockTracker - encountered an error while attempting to update latest block:
Error: ESOCKETTIMEDOUT
at ClientRequest. (**/node_modules/request/request.js:816:19)”
From all my providers. No clue what is going on

4

Hi @shubhangi sorry for delay I thought I solved it but it started happening again. The problem is that this is not a wallet problem so I think this forum is the right spot- I am using truffle to deploy and interact with contracts - the nodejs package @truffle/hdwallet-provider takes a mnemonic and a url. Here is my truffle provider:

matic: {
  provider: () => {
    return new HDWalletProvider(process.env.MNEMONIC, process.env.URL)
  },
  network_id: '137',
  gasPrice: 50000000000,
}

As you can see I am offering 50 gwei- this issue is really wearing me down and I am very close to switching to arbitrum to host dApps as this issue has been back breaking :frowning:

5

This post was not helpful either :confused:

6

Hey @jp4g, did you end up solving this problem ?