And nobody pays me to shill. I have my own agenda.... justice, equality, fair play, etc etc. Not really complicated, but when you are blinded by your own special interests I can see how it could be.
For a start you couldn't frustrate me if you tried.  But assuming that I am frustrated then what exactly are my special interests (that seemingly you should know)? |
|
|
|
Yup - used that when I was in Aus - didn't help. |
|
|
|
ROFL.... Here's your only real problem.... I don't support sidechains as an exclusive solution. I don't support rampant and careless big block building on the main chain exclusively.
Where exactly did I say that I support sidechains as an exclusive solution? (answer - in your dreams - so again you are basically lying - is it so hard to tell the truth?) |
|
|
|
What you are proposing is WORSE than the current Fiat System.
That's interesting - the guy didn't actually propose anything yet you stated that he did. What does that mean? (it means that you are making up crap) If you want to be taken seriously then why not accurately quote people rather than "put words into their mouths" to suit your own arguments? No matter how much you guys are paid to shill it won't increase your IQ. |
|
|
|
For your case I wonder if you cant connect to one of the miner nodes. They probably dont have their IPs public, but maybe you can get one if you ask. Connecting directly to them with -connect=IP could help you catch up.
I did actually try adding nodes manually (via the console window) to help but unfortunately that didn't work either. In general when it comes to bandwidth issues I tend to assume that because I live in China I will have troubles but because I could not sync the Bitcoin blockchain in Australia (when I had a month to do so) I do think that bandwidth can't be the only reason. |
|
|
|
Don't be intentionally stupid.
Again - you just can't help yourself but to be a fucking rude asshole can you? Here is a big hint for you - if you don't be an asshole then maybe people might actually even bother to read what you post. I've actually come to believe Mike's approach deserves a bit more respect, seeing as how he probably reacted out of utter frustration in dealing with the Blockstream Players.
As I suspected you are actually an XT shill being paid by none other than Mike himself (he probably has enough BTC to pay for another year's worth of this at least). |
|
|
|
What does the core build in bandwith monitor show?
Unfortunately when I was in Australia I didn't bother to look at that - from here I typically see problems that are due to the GCF (very slow ping times, etc.). I wish I had paid more attention to it in Australia (I was busy with some "real life" stuff at that time) but I would be very surprised if connectivity and bandwidth where the issue when I was there (am pretty sure I ran Bitcoin with and without a SOCKS proxy whilst I was there and my proxy is not in China). |
|
|
|
|
I have been unable to sync for the last six months at least (if I run Bitcoin it will never catch up).
At first I thought it was just because I live in China but when I visited Australia for a month it still never caught up (despite having a reasonable home bandwidth connection there).
It might simply be that the number of txs and the fact that I am using an average laptop (that is now at least 5 years old) which is preventing it from catching up. I understand in the next release sigs will be processed much faster so hopefully I can still run a full node after that (otherwise I am going to have to use a SPV wallet).
|
|
|
|
It is simple enough for an 8 year old to understand....
You should try and be less insulting if you actually want anyone to pay attention to a single word that you say.  But nobody trusts the Blockstream Players anymore. I don't trust Mike Hearn. I don't Trust the Blockstream Players.
If you think that Mike Hearn works for Blockstream then you are rather seriously confused (I think even an 8yo could even work that out). And if you don't think that Mike Hearn works for Blockstream then exactly who do you trust (as it would appear to be absolutely no-one)? |
|
|
|
If I issue a signrawtransaction with (basically) the same tx I see this: {
"hex" : "0100000001bbc6c76fd91bee5badfb0746204adba70efceb04f21a270de566827dbc34e84100000000cc473044022015c6fca1fb3e8244cfd9a90d1
348d387cb6e8792102be79ecf97cee0246b73b802201162c3acd0a1f915ee46bbf0ec4ee7ab49365c4e48c33502575c2f46298f7249012102d1570ab314b7b32ffe7
6f31232805a727d05119958d14b0b8aff9df5709676884c6076a820c775e7b757ede630cd0aa1113bd102661ab38829ca52a6422ab782862f26864687637576a9140
1d7295f243a3a6d26516b54e4e6f51278d376b588ac6703ac9a09b17576a914b6a7c89a6774de8c88d0b7a4043a6645983a479588ac68000000000120a1070000000
0001976a9148a7dd4d0e29f50f989dd2b97d463d706a7ef0c7b88ac289c0900",
"complete" : false,
"errors" : [
{
"txid" : "41e834bc7d8266e50d271af204ebfc0ea7db4a204607fbad5bee1bd96fc7c6bb",
"vout" : 0,
"scriptSig" : "473044022015c6fca1fb3e8244cfd9a90d1348d387cb6e8792102be79ecf97cee0246b73b802201162c3acd0a1f915ee46bbf0ec4
ee7ab49365c4e48c33502575c2f46298f7249012102d1570ab314b7b32ffe76f31232805a727d05119958d14b0b8aff9df5709676884c6076a820c775e7b757ede63
0cd0aa1113bd102661ab38829ca52a6422ab782862f26864687637576a91401d7295f243a3a6d26516b54e4e6f51278d376b588ac6703ac9a09b17576a914b6a7c89
a6774de8c88d0b7a4043a6645983a479588ac68",
"sequence" : 0,
"error" : "Script evaluated without error but finished with a false/empty top stack element"
}
]
}
The question is whether the complete being false is due to an invalid sig or due to the script eval error. |
|
|
|
Looks like 629420 to me too.
So if the block number isn't the issue then is the sig invalid? (current testnet3 block is 629899 and that raw tx's nLockTime is 629888) |
|
|
|
FUD. Lying FUD. Again, no one is suggesting that we JUST raise blocksize and then immediately stop all other technological innovation.
You really ought to learn to stop posting rubbish. Try and actually "read what people post" before using the FUD word. You are starting to look like not only a shill but also a troll - so choose your next words carefully if you actually want to continue any dialogue with me (it doesn't bother me one bit to just "unwatch" this topic as I do many such other topics that involve such posters). |
|
|
|
Yet, Blockstream Players have decided that to follow almost universal majority concensus that block size needs raising is a threat to their plan to gain monopolistic advantage in their minority vision of how bitcoin should develop. And they are abusing their conflicted interest positions as Comitters to do so.
You say it is a threat to their plan to gain monopolistic advantage but you don't even explain why - would you care to do that? |
|
|
|
BTW if your holy number was choosen 256 KB instead in the past, where we would be today - start thinking please
It is really disappointing that I have to repeat myself again but I will: Just increasing the block size won't scale.Do you get it yet? (the question is not about 1MB or 2MB or 10MB but about how Bitcoin can scale) |
|
|
|
No - this is political. It is pretty much purely political at this point.
Indeed it is obvious that you are only interested in making this political - so why not just stop posting the technical nonsense then (as has been pointed out to you by others) and just post your political rants. No need to confuse the newbies with technobabble is there (or is there)? |
|
|
|
|
Just increasing the block size "does not scale" (keep doing that and you'll end up with blocks with so many txs that it will actually take longer than 10 minutes to verify them all not to mention that internet bandwidth doesn't follow Moore's law).
This has been pointed out again and again but still seems to be (most likely purposely) not picked up by many of the posters here.
Stop thinking politics and start thinking engineering - please.
|
|
|
|
I really would like to hear someone offer some good supporting debate on the other side.... Please explain how blatant conflict of interest entitles a person(s) to be a comitter.
When you reply like this: You specifically are one of the reasons Bitcoin is stagnating, and in jeopardy of dying at some point, or becoming irrelevant.
I know I hurt some feelings everytime you shills need to resort to FUD to emphasize your arguments Actually, I know I am striking a nerve every time you resort to Shouting "FUD!". It's all you've got. You're just a one trick pony who relies on people's natural distrust and fear of the system in order to keep from having to intelligently engage. And I get that - the fear and mistrust. But the problem is... YOU are the system, or at least one of the systems. And your One Trick is to pretend you aren't. But your problem is.... at the end of the day, people want Bitcoin to survive and prosper, and every time you speak you are making it clear that all you care about is your own interests, and your unintelligent speech is getting old as people get impatient with the stagnation and rot that is spreading outwards from your ideas. Bye Bye little pony  it is not surprising that no-one wants to engage with any meaningful debate with you. It would appear to me that "being right" is about all that matters to you (logic and reasoned arguments are not actually what you are interested in hence your attack of @brg444 for pointing out that your very approach is not one of reasoned arguments). Bitcoin is not stagnating (and therefore is certainly in no jeopardy of dying at the moment). Perhaps you'd like to present some "proof" that Bitcoin is stagnating for a start? |
|
|
|
Hmm... I wonder if the problem is the CLTV value itself: What block number is that (am a bit tired and really starting to hate Satoshi for using little-endian)? |
|
|
|
I think I basically have the correct raw tx but still Bitcoin won't allow me to send it. 0100000001bbc6c76fd91bee5badfb0746204adba70efceb04f21a270de566827dbc34e84100000000cc47304402204d5c2b9a9a5a9e467a77d87c0de310c1fa1be7
7f9ff36f640c730a04597046d702207d9388d3d5edb4249215d69e01cc112ab4d1a6dc8c720a5fc2bb2e3c71c4ba87012102d1570ab314b7b32ffe76f31232805a72
7d05119958d14b0b8aff9df5709676884c6076a820c775e7b757ede630cd0aa1113bd102661ab38829ca52a6422ab782862f26864687637576a91401d7295f243a3a
6d26516b54e4e6f51278d376b588ac6703ac9a09b17576a914b6a7c89a6774de8c88d0b7a4043a6645983a479588ac68000000000120a10700000000001976a9148a
7dd4d0e29f50f989dd2b97d463d706a7ef0c7b88ac809c0900
the decoded version of this: {
"txid" : "ed4861442c7f3fd1c066ce93e335349914750f2c6cdf8778f7a71cec7422aebe",
"version" : 1,
"locktime" : 629888,
"vin" : [
{
"txid" : "41e834bc7d8266e50d271af204ebfc0ea7db4a204607fbad5bee1bd96fc7c6bb",
"vout" : 0,
"scriptSig" : {
"asm" : "304402204d5c2b9a9a5a9e467a77d87c0de310c1fa1be77f9ff36f640c730a04597046d702207d9388d3d5edb4249215d69e01cc112
ab4d1a6dc8c720a5fc2bb2e3c71c4ba8701 02d1570ab314b7b32ffe76f31232805a727d05119958d14b0b8aff9df570967688 76a820c775e7b757ede630cd0aa11
13bd102661ab38829ca52a6422ab782862f26864687637576a91401d7295f243a3a6d26516b54e4e6f51278d376b588ac6703ac9a09b17576a914b6a7c89a6774de8
c88d0b7a4043a6645983a479588ac68",
"hex" : "47304402204d5c2b9a9a5a9e467a77d87c0de310c1fa1be77f9ff36f640c730a04597046d702207d9388d3d5edb4249215d69e01cc1
12ab4d1a6dc8c720a5fc2bb2e3c71c4ba87012102d1570ab314b7b32ffe76f31232805a727d05119958d14b0b8aff9df5709676884c6076a820c775e7b757ede630c
d0aa1113bd102661ab38829ca52a6422ab782862f26864687637576a91401d7295f243a3a6d26516b54e4e6f51278d376b588ac6703ac9a09b17576a914b6a7c89a6
774de8c88d0b7a4043a6645983a479588ac68"
},
"sequence" : 0
}
],
"vout" : [
{
"value" : 0.00500000,
"n" : 0,
"scriptPubKey" : {
"asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 8a7dd4d0e29f50f989dd2b97d463d706a7ef0c7b OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex" : "76a9148a7dd4d0e29f50f989dd2b97d463d706a7ef0c7b88ac",
"reqSigs" : 1,
"type" : "pubkeyhash",
"addresses" : [
"mt9EHSSeERgWKNqYfdmkpa4Mjb4EXr4QY2"
]
}
}
]
}
You can also debug it here: https://webbtc.com/script if you copy and paste this into the Input Script: 3045022100922dd91ae97909ee6cfa19976e3d072d24521e0e3717d6c1634e190d43131922022064b992db3588651c717777d579c74787daf5d24b3b9651ea4cb38544ff50604501
02d1570ab314b7b32ffe76f31232805a727d05119958d14b0b8aff9df570967688
76a820c775e7b757ede630cd0aa1113bd102661ab38829ca52a6422ab782862f26864687637576a91401d7295f243a3a6d26516b54e4e6f51278d376b588ac6703ac9a09b17576a914b6a7c89a6774de8c88d0b7a4043a6645983a479588ac68
and the following into the Output Script: OP_HASH160 5817f2d63208327c21da272a3bb037c3d9ec0269 OP_EQUAL
The error I'm getting when trying to send this raw transaction is as follows: error: {"code":-26,"message":"16: mandatory-script-verify-flag-failed (Script evaluated without error but finished with a false/empty top stack element)"}
|
|
|
|
I don't really understand the question. Do you mean you cannot produce a valid signature by using your tool? I checked the rawtx you created and indeed the problem is within the signature. webbtc verifies this as well.
I have written code that signs "standard P2PKH" transactions here: https://github.com/ciyam/ciyam/blob/master/src/crypto_keys.cpp#L805 and if you look closely you'll see c_empty_sig_script (which is "00") being placed where the sig later goes (why I was mucking around with the extra 00 above) and also this: signing_info_suffix += c_hash_code_type_all;
which appends "01000000" (only to what is signed rather than what is actually the raw tx). Basically to manually do a sig I'll need to apply the same approach to non-standard txs (nothing too hard - just some modifications really). I was actually hoping to just use bitcoin-cli rather than to have to write code though but it's beginning to look like signrawtransaction is not able to do what I am wanting it to. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
