just stepped through the readme file in the code:


This proves, that you are not only from FreeBSD world, you are probably more from the OpenBSD world! Looking at the code of bitcoin, there are too many people, which say "code is doc". Well, I can even remember a thread here, were Greg M is challenging others in reading code and asking to explain. This might prove him be a genius, but in companies you need team capabilities, not single point of failure knowledge. Reliability, combined with fall back scenarios is required. This is why good code is not only readable, but also documented. Otherwise the world would still be in (Z80 ?) assembler.

Appreciating your code distribution, looking at it, and trying to find out, what to do with it. Thanx for posting.

This is not mamma and papa banking ...
[/quote]
no its not, sounds more like a childish behaviour trying to hijack every lightning thread here. 
Anti-Cen! Already me and others complained... You try to put your fud and propaganda in every lightning thread. Nobody believes it, but that's a different topic. I propose to open a new task, where you state, that lightning is the piece of shit that you think it is, and explain at a very detailed level, why this is what you think it is. And of course, you can put all your weird assumptions into it (like paying high amounts of pounds/dollars/Euros), and also your excellent predictions of the future. And for sure the funny banksters comparisons.

The advantage of doing so is that you just need to put one comment into all the lightning threads, with a link to your thread ("I already described here, why..."). That gives you a special level of reputation as well. And it doesn't pollute all threads, reduces others from being diverted with funny explanations, which hampers reading experience.  So community would really benefit from a grouping of your arguments into a single thread.

Also, it reduces network traffic, and especially saves space. If you continue to comment on each and every task, it is like bitcoin storing only 227 bytes of tx data on thousands of servers, and based on your own argumentation, this is highly inefficient.

Help us here in the forum to get also more efficient!

I think there is some misconception here - on the onehand side it is asked to make a process "granny" proof, but on the otherhand side it is already a complex 7 step process, with online wallet, offline or cold storage wallet ideas, paperwallets, QR code scanning, encryption and the complex topic of sweeping or scanning. If people here in the forum mix this up, how shall this be granny proof?

No, I don't think that it shall be granny proof, it can't be - too complex. It looks more like looking for an easy method that saves time for the annoying complexity of handling paper wallets (and insisting to use them going forward). If this is the case, then the right question is: what is the willingness to spend/contribute some funds, so that this particular feature is realized?

alexeyneu provided an answer to this, which I think is a really fair offer. It can then be put on github as open source, and further developped. And who knows, even one day it might get a high level of user acceptance, that is desired also by others?

there are always people here who don't get it right. I'm sorry if your risk turned out to be losses. But maybe this risk turns into a win in the future? I just want to state something very clear, cause currently here in the forum there is too much fud on lightning.

- The bitcoin network has proven to be secure for very large values.
  people discovered, that bitcoin was not good enough for smaller payments, so SegWit for larger blocks was developed, and Lightning for smaller values.
- The Lightning network is the idea for mini or micro payments.

A new technology is never ever ready to be used for large amounts. Why would you want to put large amounts into something that you don't trust? There is a contradiction in this... If you think it is too much risk, then maybe stay with bitcoin (or other coins). Nobody forces us to use lightning ...
 
There are also people who try to say that lightning is insecure, is a banking system, is not scaling, or is not trustworthy, or even better, is a centralized system. For sure they know how the future will develop (aka throwing shells).
Don't listen to these idiots! Participate in setting up a node, get accustomed to its features, and create your own opinion. And yes, use the forums here (good!). That's why we have brains. Raise open ended questions, and keep the discussion going with arguments, instead of assumptions (based on zero knowledge). And with our brains we make the crypto currency world sexy, future proof and fun.
People who are just criticizing without proper knowledge just drag you down to their idiotic knowledge, with their stupidity, and will beat you there with their experience. You don't want to be there! 

when you follow the entries of Anti-Cen in the forum, you naturally come to the conclusion, that he is trying to throw his fud on bitcoin/Lightning. He references webpages with 12$ to store 220bytes of data. And also wants to measure Satoshi/Byte in Megabytes. Well, he is free to do so (IMHO a good laugh). He is trying to through his torsioned view at the community. He can do so, it's a free world (somehow)! From the posts one can derive a limited level of comprehension of the underlying logic (well, as every low level people). In his view Lightning shall be used for large amount tx, and the number of hosts shall be reduced to 1000. Which in his logic proofs, that the system cannot work .
I haven't seen a single constructive proposal. He is probably paid by government to disturb fruitful discussions. Those who got it, understand the fud. @ruletheworld got it... the others discuss at the same level. Kind of hopeless. 

I am not 100% sure... wasn't there this OP_CHECKMULTISIG off-by-one error, and you had to put a hex "0" before the signature?
See the explanation in Andreas' book "Mastering Bitcoin" (2nd edition) in chapter 7, page 150 ... (book is online available)

Have any of your new addresses, and search for an UTXO with the old address ("listunspent"), that can be used, and note down this address, the tx ID and vout (and maybe adjust the value). These are the steps I used last recently (even with a P2SH address):


# verify new address has funds:

This will create a transaction from one address to another. While this is ok on testnet/regtest network, it wouldn't make too much sense in production, as this is a regular bitcoin tx, and it involves fees.

Maybe the obstacle can get reduced, if you think of micro payments 
A new technology never spends "millions" from the very beginning, for sure. It is easier to lower the level of a possible loss, and get accustomed to the technology (we usually gain trust in a technology over time, if we can rely on it). Personally I will start with Satoshis in the channels, not bitcoins. But I see your point: for a proper risk assessment, you have to do a qualitative and then a quantitative risk assessment, to be able to define a possible loss, and create a monetary value behind for risk mitigation or avoidance...

This thread covers a bit the same: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2781978.msg28466764#msg28466764

strong statement - how do you know it's not solvable? Like the Fermat's theorem was not solvable? Or mankind can never fly? Or maybe just "currently it seems extremely difficult to find a solution for this topic"?
I am looking at BGP daemons, and the DNS system. They are exactly dealing with this same problem. And at the very low level RIPv1 was centralized, per design. Up until the time were networks decentralized, and BGP was developped. There are hubs everywhere in the world, there is no single, centralized hub. I imagine a similiar approach in Lightning. Would this still be called centralized? I don't think so...?

This is one of the repeating fallacies in this world (and this forum) - stipulating that success of a topic can only be achieved when you can make money with it. I will get hard to explain then, how this whole eco system developed, and why there is Open Source software... or even help aid or other social activities benefitting the society. It is definitely a severe limitation of imagination, posting such statements.
When it comes to "NOBODY" - well, maybe I'm a nobody  : I AM running a full node, without having benefits, and I know some other people doing the same. And yes, we want to run lightning nodes, of course! Without making money. And yes, I WILL open channels for routing (so the project will not fail, and get a helping hand to start).
What is it, that these statements reappear all the time? Is it this capitalistic paranoia, that communism is already ruling the world, and free speech and free travel and personal privacy is already gone? I would think so... Maybe this is, why we have red stripes in the US flag...

still it doesn't make you an expert, au contraire, mon ami, it just lets you look a bit poor in predicting the future. Why do you insist on this so hardly? Are you a person who has the duty to protect others, or were you hit by the limitations of the current bitcoin network? Or even better,  were you forced to use this bitcoin system, which has at every end so many flaws?
Or are you just not competent enough, to bring the millions of bitcoin users to the shitcoin world, and gain your advantage?

Reading all the fud in this thread and the other posts in the forum here, it is more like you are licking wounds. SegWit is overly complex designed, LN a scam. And yes, you stated, that you have fully grasped the idea of this. 
I see, big blocks and flex blocks are the only solution...

We have now several hardforks, people are free to use it. Why don't you do as well, and let "us" play with Bitcoin and Lightning?
There is the gigantic december proof, that the shitcoins don't have any value next to bitcoin. They entirly depend on the "root" - the single one and only root, which is bitcoin. If bitcoin rises, they rise, if bitcoin falls, they fall even deeper. And the most funny part is, not even "THE developpers" (as if this was a well defined group of individuals in a company) are guilty for this - or maybe yes, cause they didn't protect you (and your "us") from these shitcoins?

ridicoulous ...

maybe the picture of the business model of these large companies is not correct.

These audit firms basically proof, that your company's bookkeeping is "ok". That is a governmental requirement - need to have an independent verification of your records... I remember that the amount to pay for such statements vary in the range between 30.000 for fairly small companies up to several 100.000s and more.

Also, these large public accountants or auditing firms have a pool of headcounts (consultants), that they rent out to the market. Pay rates easily achieve 800 Euro/day, and go all the way up to things like 3500/day.

And all to often the clients order KPMG/Deloitte/PWC/EY to proof/verify their books, and at the same time place an order for the temporary hiring of headcounts from these companies.
I wonder how this can be an independent statement in the sense of a 4 eyes principle.  Today we know, that the figures of Greece have been "formed" in a way by Goldman Sachs and accounting firms, so that Greece can make it into the Euro zone.
Maybe today there is a rule, that you cannot hire for the next 10 years headcounts from such company, when they verify your books.

But probably the world is a much better place than I  am thinking here   

So their business model will change a bit, when blockchains will be used to keep track of your record, but that does not change the business with consultants, they can proof than something different :-)

short answer: in the code 
long answer: it is difficult to see, what you have done so far, cause this impacts the activity.
Probably you'd like to explain a bit, what system you have, which code base you use, what language, and so on. This type of information makes it more understandable, to give advice.
Hint: if you just cloned a github repository, and ask the community to help getting forward, you might not receive valuable info.
But I see that you have already some undertsanding by asking for the replacement of a hashing function - so you must already have some good experience.

this is kind of an amusing thread. 
people    complain that bitcoin has too high fees, that you can't pay your coffee.

So everyone is preaching, bitcoin shall be used for high values, and lightning for micro payments.

People seem to get this, but in this thread they complain, lightning cannot be used cause when one puts large amounts in it, it can hardly be afforded over a longer period of time.

How stupid will this go?

@hardwarewallet: I think you are over a bit here. I have read your blog post explaining Meltdown and Spectre for the average person. Nice summary. I wonder how you can say, router OS or hardware wallets are secure. I cannot see how you derive this.

On your statement:
this wording creates wrong expectations. Even as non-expert in security one could easily create a linux box with two network cards, and then on top of the operating system run an application, which routes data from one network to the other. And also it is not at all stand alone...

With your words one would think to be secure. But the opposite is true! Even worth, reality is doing it exactly this way:
Looking at the providers, e.g. AT&T is asking for Open Network Automation Platform, which is exactly an OS with apps on top. And Cisco operating system is the same (only old IOS maybe... IOS-XE extended IOS and it's monolithic problems by abstracting some modules, with an underlying operating system is based on a Linux distro, IOS XR uses QNX, ...), Juniper uses FreeBSD, and you will find similiar on Nortel/Nokia/...

I have no proof that these systems are vulnerable or not, and I also have no proof, that the hardware wallets are secure or not.
Maybe best wording is, that up until today, no security issues (side channel attacks like Meltdown/Spectre) have been found in the wild for these systems (or at best are difficult to implement, cause attack vectors are limited...).

In security the wording is more decent. Statements are linked to specific environments and test cases, and do not derive "general security" for others from the observations. Security is a beast... You cannot only predict security, only when you have a fully deterministic machine.

So stating that hardware wallets or Routers are secure, is most probably overdoing it (if not wrong, but that will only be shown by the future  ).

I have "only" some observation:

the output of the tx has twice the same address hash (and as such the bitcoin address), with the same value (0.015 BTC). Why isn't this a single output of 0.03 BTC?

Also:
this is a multisig spending transaction. The redeem script is included, and translates to:


Also this redeem script has two addresses, which are the same. The redeem script defines it as a 2-of-2 multisig, shouldn't it then have two addresses? (I haven't checked the code, if this is really possible...)
It would also be interesting to change to a 1-of-2 multisig, maybe then it goes through?

Here is Gavin's example for a multisig on testnet: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/gavinandresen/3966071/raw/TwoOfThree.sh

assuming you have a fully sync'd client, you can read-in directly the blk*.dat files into mysql, without the need for the JSON API:

https://github.com/bitcoin-abe/bitcoin-abe/blob/master/README-MYSQL.txt

there are several way to read the files, even into a MySQL database. Couldn't find C#, but maybe you can flip through this link, and find what you need:

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/search?q=blk00000.dat+file

so regtest is a local setup, were we can't see, what happened on your PC. I assume, you have created the funding tx, and would need to verify, if you have the "old" raw tx. "decoderawtransaction" would be the right command.
If it doesn't provide any value, you may have to re-create the funding tx. You may also want to post the raw tx (the funding and the spending), so we can better help ...

as the address is "n1fprNxRhWrpkJ34A4cNsSZbHsnzhob2KL ", it looks like you are on testnet, or even on regtest?
I couldn't find the tx number in any of the testnet explorers.

Did you create the previous tx, from which you want to spend?