Bitcoin Forum
November 17, 2018, 07:56:10 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 ... 547 »
401  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: What do you think of this change on the GUI on: March 04, 2018, 06:41:10 AM
What's the actual-bytes transaction size (or, well, per-input size) in the case of P2SH-P2WPKH versus P2PKH or "legacy" single-key P2SH?
The actual byte size for a P2PKH input is 148 bytes. For a P2SH-P2WPKH input, it is 171 bytes. For a P2WPKH it's also 148 bytes.

However the actual byte size doesn't really matter. Blocks are not limited by size but rather by weight. And transaction fees are actually by weight or virtual size (weight/4) and not actual size. So th weight for a P2PKH output is 592. For P2SH-P2WPKH it is 360 and P2WPKH it is 268. So as you can see, the segwit inputs consume less weight and are thus cheaper to spend.

Is it currently possible to sign a message with a P2SH-P2WPKH address?
No. There is no standard for signing messages with segwit addresses yet. That's something that is being worked on. Note that messages aren't actually signed with an address. Rather they are signed with a public-private key pair which can correspond to multiple addresses. Your wallet software will calculate the public key for a message and convert that into an address. A wallet could just as easily show you a P2SH-P2WPKH or P2WPKH address instead of a P2PKH address when it is verifying a signed message. What needs to happen is a specification for signing messages with a script which can thus be generalized to signing with an address. Such messages and signatures would actually correspond to addresses and not a public key which your wallet just turns into an address.
402  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Why it does not change script address prefix? on: March 02, 2018, 03:31:31 PM
What exactly are the lines you changed (as in post the code snippets for your changes).
403  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Will it ever be possible to separate chainstate and blocks folder? on: March 02, 2018, 03:27:28 PM
But I remember I asked about symlinking method to separate chainstate folder from blocks folder and also other members also asked about it and basically the consensus was that it was very unsafe and would corrupt the block or chainstate files... what has changed since then? Or when you say possible, you mean it can be done but it is still unsafe even with the latest version? Im just not sure what you mean.

I think you mean that nothing has changed and it's still unsafe but I want to be sure... but I predict that im going to be stuck with an HDD.
Nothing has changed and it's probably still unsafe to symlink the blocks folder.
404  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: What do you think of this change on the GUI on: March 02, 2018, 03:26:29 PM
What's the point of not keeping it? Some people will only accept legacy payments and they have they right to do so, and people have their right to use legacy at any time.

It would not be any more confusing than having that "Generate Bech32 address" button which already exists there.

And like I said, this could be hidden by default and shown if you enable advanced features on the menu.

In any case, noobs in general don't use full nodes. Anyone using a full node knows what that is anyway.
The idea to use dropdowns came up frequently in discussions on how to support getting segwit addresses in the GUI. We decided to stick with the checkbox approach because we want to encourage users to use segwit. The only reason to have the checkbox is to let people use bech32 addresses when they want to and default to backwards compatible p2sh-segwit addresses. There's little reason to use legacy addresses except out of principle (i.e. those who hate segwit). For such people, they can start Bitcoin Core with addresstype=legacy, and hopefully those options will be available from the settings menu too (there's an open PR for that).
405  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Error "Potential stale tip detected, will try using extra outbound peer" on: March 02, 2018, 05:27:32 AM
Did you reset your datadir before trying with the new genesis block? Reset as in delete the blocks and chainstate folders.
406  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Error "Potential stale tip detected, will try using extra outbound peer" on: March 02, 2018, 04:06:20 AM
So nonce and genesis hash is different with [ assert(consensus.hashGenesisBlock == ] part?
Of course it will be, that's how mining works!

The nonce is part of the block header which is used for computing the block hash. It is what is changed to make a valid proof of work. Your nonce and thus the genesis hash were invalid, the script produces values that will be different which will be valid.

So then this means genesish0 is not work with current source? (litecoin 0.15.1)
No, it worked correctly, just that the script is a little wrong. It still found a valid block, but it printed the wrong value for the block hash. You can see that the block hash was printed in your error, it's 0000c978c4bf731c7e48018bc21f658b37394b5d18bd2ceca383768387578d76. So you need to set your genesis block assertion to that value.
407  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: SegWit, Industry standard for the future? on: March 02, 2018, 03:59:39 AM
With the SegWit2x, the existing bitcoin transactions will not be congested (at least 2-3 years), and then there will be more intelligent two-layer protocols. .
Segwit is not the same as Segwit2x.
408  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Insert again the option of doing transaction less than 1 sat/byte Issue #12536 on: March 01, 2018, 08:12:46 PM
so essentially I think both txs are treated as having higher than 1 s/VB tx fee
while bc.info is displaying them (inaccurately) having less than 1 s/B
That's correct. Bitcoin Core does things in sat/vByte, not sat/byte (although things are still named the old way).
409  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Will it ever be possible to separate chainstate and blocks folder? on: March 01, 2018, 08:11:31 PM
Will this ever be possible
It should be possible to do now with symlinking. But to actually have configuration options, I'm not sure.

and how long are we from seeing that?
No such time estimates can be given since no one is working on it and it is not a priority.

I remember asking a long time ago about wallet separated from root folder and got told it was not possible and unsafe, yet it is now possible, so I would like to ask about this.
What people were asking for in the past is not possible and is still unsafe. What happens now is only possible because of datadir structure changes that move wallet things into their own separate directory.
410  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Error "Potential stale tip detected, will try using extra outbound peer" on: March 01, 2018, 03:43:44 PM
You still have failed to generate a valid genesis block. Reindexing isn't going to do anything.

Since you seem to be having such a hard time creating the genesis block, why don't you use a script like http://github.com/lhartikk/GenesisH0 to do it for you?
411  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.16.0 Released on: March 01, 2018, 03:41:33 PM
Kewl Smiley would i need to add server=1 on the full node for it to work? right now it has no .conf file running gui version
No. server=1 is only necessary if you are planning on using the JSON-RPC interface.
412  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.16.0 Released on: March 01, 2018, 04:15:35 AM
got a question, can i addnode= from local LAN that's running a full node to my spv wallet to sync from alot faster then say using the internet? Reason i run 2 copies is i hate copying that 150 gb of data over my network ~ 30 mins to backup the entire blockchain Sad
Sure, there's no reason you can't. You can use connect instead of addnode to guarantee that you are connected to your local node and syncing only from it.
413  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: What is normal running state of ./bitcoind ? on: February 28, 2018, 11:26:45 PM
and afterwards use API commands [1] to communicate via:
Code:
./bitcoin-cli

[1] http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_Calls_list
Using

Code:
bitcoin-cli help
and
Code:
bitcoin-cli help <command>

will give you much better and up to date information than can be found on the Bitcoin wiki.
414  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Why it does not change script address prefix? on: February 28, 2018, 11:23:21 PM
Are you sure that the addresses you are getting are P2SH addresses? The default used to be P2PKH, and unless you are modifying the latest code, that's all you are going to get. P2PKH prefixes are not governed by the prefix corresponding to SCRIPT_ADDRESS.



If you don't know what those mean, then you need to do more research.
415  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Idea:Add the UTXO set to blocks on: February 27, 2018, 09:34:09 PM
Actually, a soft fork is definitely possible by merge mining this "alt-coin" into the Bitcoin blockchain. It provides no validity guarantees (since maliciously merge-mined blocks don't penalize miners) but it's a way to signal acceptance.
It could be deployed just as a normal soft fork into Bitcoin by putting the UTXO set commitment into another OP_RETURN output just like what segwit does for the witness root commitment.
416  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core parser for python on: February 27, 2018, 08:56:55 PM
You can use python-bitcoinlib to deserialize the raw blockchain data into python objects.

You could also just let Bitcoin Core do that work and use its RPC commands to fetch block data in JSON format.
417  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Source revision, Assertion `globalChainParams' failed on: February 27, 2018, 08:52:07 PM
Then instead of using the checkproofofwork function, copy out its code into your while loop and refer to the variables directly from within the ChainParams. This is simple programming debugging and troubleshooting, you should not need hand holding and someone to tell you exactly what to do.



Not gonna lie, the fact that you are constantly asking for people to give you specific, hand holding instructions both here and on Bitcoin Stack Exchange indicates to me that you should not be creating your own cryptocurrency. Even "just for educational purposes", you should understand how to read and write code before doing this. You can learn how cryptocurrencies work without reading the code anyways, there's lots of documentation on the specifics. The things that you are asking are simple programming questions that you should be able to figure out yourself.
418  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: docker, bitcoind and log spam on: February 27, 2018, 08:44:04 PM
No, those log lines cannot be disabled. They are logging each block that gets added to the blockchain, and you will see lots of those lines during the initial sync.
419  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.16.0 binaries available on: February 27, 2018, 03:43:52 PM
So that means P2PKH or P2SH inputs could be spent respectively as P2WPKH or P2WSH? Transferring to segwit addresses isn't strictly necessary, as wallet software could be programmed to write transactions using the segwit address corresponding to the common public key of legacy addresses holding funds?
No, I misread your question.

The output type is specified by a script since addresses do not exist on the network. So P2PKH and P2SH outputs have a specific script that need to have specific input scriptsigs in order for them to be spent from validly. Likewise, P2WPKH and P2WSH outputs have their own output scripts which need to be spent in a specific way that is different from P2PKH and P2SH outputs.
420  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.16.0 binaries available on: February 26, 2018, 11:58:43 PM
What prevents wallet software from spending from non-segwit addresses using the segwit address corresponding to a common public key?
Nothing. Whoops, misread that question.

Yes I know this, when we give the command RPC dumpwallet "destination", in the document just below the private keys, each segwit P2SH address has its redemscript but I do not know how to use it and I do not even know what the utility of that redemscript is. The Electrum wallet shows the new private format of the private keys of the segwit addresses, but no other wallet recognizes, only Electrum, if we import bitcoin-QT a bech32 private key generated in the Electrum of the error, because bitcoin-QT does not recognize the private key of bech32 address of Electrum
You can't use it in another wallet unless they support explicitly setting a redeemScript or explicitly saying that a given private key should be used for segwit.

Interwallet compatibility with importing/exporting private keys is not very good and it never really was something that was worked on in the past. There is ongoing work to standardize a format for segwit private keys.

Well I remember reading achow101 saying that if you had an old bitcoin-qt wallet.dat and opened it with 0.16 it will automatically convert it to the new format and you don't need to do anything annoying like creating an empty one and sending all of your coins over the new wallet.dat which is hell.
No, you either misunderstand or misremember what I said. It "converts" the wallet so that it can be used for segwit, but no actual conversion happens because nothing in the wallet format needs to change. It is partially backwards compatible; if you go back to too old a version (older than 0.13.1), your wallet won't work as you expect it to.

I hadn't seen that. Thanks.
I wonder what electrum implemented if there's no standard yet. But I see that's been asked/wondered there
Electrum tends to implement their own formats for things and not get them standardized. They have implemented their own segwit private key, public key, seed, and signature format which is specific only to Electrum (the signature format might work with Trezor).
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 ... 547 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!