stop writing code, and sit down and make a standard. Its not that hard, nobody just wants to do it because they are lazy bastard who like to code crap code, instead of doing things the right way.
They don't strike me like people who like to write code  And I guess you never tried to describe what a code does, in a human readable language. Otherwise you would know that it's impossible. if you can't describe what your code does, you should stop writing it. not, if you still understand what it does. if the human readable language is not able to express the real meaning of C, why would anyone who knows C limit his further lexical possibilities? |
|
|
|
stop writing code, and sit down and make a standard. Its not that hard, nobody just wants to do it because they are lazy bastard who like to code crap code, instead of doing things the right way.
They don't strike me like people who like to write code And I guess you never tried to describe what a code does, in a human readable language. Otherwise you would know that it's impossible. |
|
|
|
It's just writing code and it doesn't seem so much of work.
/me looking forward to reviewing your patch. my client already has a deterministic wallet |
|
|
|
yeah, we need a standard. the only question is: who is going to develop a voting system that will decide about the standard?
thank god, we have a primitive bitcoin mining concept, backed with a billion dollar stability fund.
because if the future of this currency was based only on getting together the people developing its IT infrastructure, it would have been pretty fucking doomed.
voting is not needed. we just need a guy with some balls to act as a dictator for a short period of time, and an army of typing monkeys implementing the standard. what is done at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification is usable, but most is yanked out of the satoshi client and lots of stuff have changed so the wiki is not up to date either. again: make a standard and implement it. from my experience, the only standard there is, is the satoshi source code. the wiki is very helpful though and it almost nowhere contradicts the actual protocol, but the standard is in the code. and maybe its not such a bad idea for a standard to be in a code. as long as this code is not stupid |
|
|
|
|
What I am grumbling about is that for over two years none of these geniuses had a balls to put a hack in a code (even one that you have to enable with a cmd line switch) that would make the client to generate further keys basing on the function, instead of the random number source.
It's just writing code and it doesn't seem so much of work.
|
|
|
|
|
@justusranvier, I think its a good idea, but rather for bitcoin 3.0
IMHO, there is no way you could introduce such a system in a foreseeable future.
It just seems to complex. And people wont like it.
|
|
|
|
Oh, it's something to me, to grumble about again. Deterministic wallets, that gmaxwell invented already two years ago and are relatively simple to get implemented - where are they? The Type-2 he came out with, that you can generate further public keys outside the private wallet, brilliant - just what you need here. But where is it? Instead what we have got in the past two years? Is it what we got for these two years a joke - or am I joking? |
|
|
|
|
yeah, we need a standard. the only question is: who is going to develop a voting system that will decide about the standard?
thank god, we have a primitive bitcoin mining concept, backed with a billion dollar stability fund.
because if the future of this currency was based only on getting together the people developing its IT infrastructure, it would have been pretty fucking doomed.
|
|
|
|
Be glad the additional space contains only zeros and not your private key.
It could have, indeed. |
|
|
|
The satoshi client is only broken if you got that hex as the output of signrawtransaction.
So the satoshi client can just troll around and smash things up, so no other client gets a fair chance to be able to create transactions. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script.cpp#L261 <-- this is where the satoshi client fail. the client is bad, and sipa(the dev who commited this) should feel bad. I disagree that he should feel bad. Your signature is inconsistent - one length clearly does not match the other. IMHO, he's right treating it like he does; a probably broken signature. |
|
|
|
wasn't that the guy that put prayers in the blockchain?
I think i have trolled him a bit too much to ask him to accept my transaction with out appropriate fees, and the satoshi client will not accept the transaction unless its over 11 months old.
No - then don't ask him. Just find the IP of his node and send it there... |
|
|
|
but the bottom line is: your transaction might get mined after all. send it to luke-jr - he seems to be running the most liberal mining node out there. or mine it yourself, if the copper feeding electricity to your house is thick enough as long as the blockchain protocol allows it, I don't mind any software to reject relaying any transaction, by its own subjective rules. |
|
|
|
There is no risk for a hard fork at all right now, by the way. This is just local client policy about which transactions are relayed.
Are you sure? From what I see, the only place where IsCanonicalSignature is called from is EvalScript - the same function the blockchain parser uses. bool fSuccess = (!fStrictEncodings || (IsCanonicalSignature(vchSig) && IsCanonicalPubKey(vchPubKey)));
if (fSuccess)
fSuccess = CheckSig(vchSig, vchPubKey, scriptCode, txTo, nIn, nHashType, flags);
Oh, I get it - its the fStrictEncodings. Thanks for explaining  Yeah, it would not have caused a hard fork - sorry for messing up. I once analyzed the <hashtype> byte problem (I mentioned before) and then realized that fixing it would require a hard fork. And this mislead me. |
|
|
|
There is no risk for a hard fork at all right now, by the way. This is just local client policy about which transactions are relayed.
Are you sure? From what I see, the only place where IsCanonicalSignature is called from is EvalScript - the same function the blockchain parser uses. bool fSuccess = (!fStrictEncodings || (IsCanonicalSignature(vchSig) && IsCanonicalPubKey(vchPubKey)));
if (fSuccess)
fSuccess = CheckSig(vchSig, vchPubKey, scriptCode, txTo, nIn, nHashType, flags);
|
|
|
|
Fuck you liar! sipa added the check only 11 months ago.
Don't talk to me like this - I only tried to help you, but I can swear as well. 11 months ago is long enough to cause a hard fork, if they revert the change now. no its not. there already exist transactions that violates the beauty checks, and other clients accept these transactions too. no. such transactions don't exist. not in the blockchain. it doesn't matter what other clients accept - it only matters what miners accept, and 99% of them are already at satoshi 0.8.x |
|
|
|
Fuck you liar! sipa added the check only 11 months ago.
Don't talk to me like this - I only tried to help you, but I can swear as well. 11 months ago is long enough to cause a hard fork, if they revert the change now. You should have mined your ugly tx before this change - that would surely prevent it |
|
|
|
Well, good luck with that, I guess.
so you are okay with that the developers is destroying bitcoin by trying to make it better? this code if very old. if they "fix" it now, it would surely create a hard fork soon - you don't really want it. better change your code, adapting it to the beauty checks. that is the reality all the new emerging bitcoin implementation will need to live in. no altcoin can also be perfect from the first release, and they all are going to face similar issues in a future. |
|
|
|
Returning ThreadRPCServer method=sendrawtransaction
ERROR: Non-canonical signature: wrong length marker
ERROR: CScriptCheck() : f57a2c4d3b8f9653eaee0d5611fcf7c918bcc8903894e148c5b56486fb3f8eaa VerifySignature failed
ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : ConnectInputs failed f57a2c4d3b8f9653eaee0d5611fcf7c918bcc8903894e148c5b56486fb3f8eaa because of a too low fee is rather strange that makes sense. so blockchain.info does not use bitcoind - I was always wondering.. @kokjo your tx won't get mined. it does not like the fact that the 44 (<total_length> field) in your sig is not the actual sig length minus 3. if (vchSig[1] != vchSig.size()-3)
return error("Non-canonical signature: wrong length marker"); |
|
|
|
0100000001fd31efbac93daa8743525898e81ebcfc69988484ede77537369117112b03dfb500000 0006c49304402203ccac0d763cea96b7eefcc8bb77083312d5f74f19f3f38a2ef7c09a56303ec37 022014247484bc2e6f979ea783753b92751deff8ea69f488483c18349c92ee8c517300000121020 c04fd79c0de8acaf84cf68c92b5a64357b83c7e8c5115ee17ca5179b2516b95ffffffff01e41f01 00000000001976a914b110cace3b1d8181df64854ddcf85bc635d10de888ac00000000
this one works for me as well, so its definitely a different issue than I had mentioned before. maybe bitcoind just does not like your low 0.00000071 BTC fee? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
