Show Posts
|
Pages: [1]
|
Version 4.5.2, macOS 12.7.3 Monterey This is second time I found unpaid invoiced within Send area of Electrum. See screenshots. Small amounts but anyway I'm absolutely sure I did not create these invoices. Who knows what's that?
|
|
|
since 4.4.1 version there is no Replace-by-fee checkbox in Electrum settings. Who knows how to disable rbf? Bitpay requires rbf to be disabled. What happens if I ignore this requirement?
|
|
|
I guess CPFP won't help as the parent was confirmed yesterday
Seems that you don't know exactly how CPFP works. Both outputs are still unspent. If you want to accelerate the confirmation using CPFP method, you need to spend the fund from one of outputs of the unconfirmed transaction using a high fee. Let's say the fund has been sent from address A to address B and then from address B to address C. In CPFP method, the second transaction helps the first transaction to be confirmed. The first transaction cannot help the second transaction. If you have control over one of outputs of the transaction, you can use CPFP method. If you have control over inputs and you are in hurry, since the transaction is RBF, the best thing you can do is to bump the fee. In Electrum under History tab if I right click on the unconfirmed transaction there is a pulldown menu with an option "Child pays for parent". Then I can set the desired Tx fee. Will this help?
|
|
|
Please take a look at this transaction https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/3DgYkeJR7QC6YEsYRawr3KoXvit7N6SWufThe transaction from an address with confirmed coins and with quite sufficient Tx fee is not confirmed since afternoon till midnight! What can be the reason of such delay? I guess CPFP won't help as the parent was confirmed yesterday Hopefully at the time you read this it will be confirmed already.
|
|
|
Can you provide a screenshot of your Electrum "Transactions" preference tab settings? I've not personally had any issues with 3.3.8 and freezing addresses/"spend from" doing unexpected things... so I'm wondering if there is a combination of settings that might be causing this? There is nothing to get confused. I checked two checkboxes out of four: "Use change addresses" and "Spend only confirmed coins" I posted this issue on Github and one guy from the team answered that I need to upgrade to 4.0.2 as a lot of related code was modified there. So, now I need to upgrade my Macbook (autumn 2008) first as it will not run MacOS 10.13.
|
|
|
No. The stuck transactions were finally confirmed in a couple of days 1sat/B on the other hand can be easily CPFP~ed by the receiver (intentional or not by using higher fee). That's unless the attacker's low-fee unconfirmed parent's size is too high, it'll be expensive to CPFP.
Good idea! Next time I sure will try it
|
|
|
Check this screenshot above. This is Transaction preview I am going to send a small amount of BTC from an address with quite sufficient and confirmed balance. I checked "Spend only confirmed coins" in Electrum properties I marked "Freez" the addresses with unconfirmed coins and they are greyed in address list Now you can see that "spend from" address is not included in transaction preview. It looks like Electrum collects Bitcoin dust anyway independant on settings and selected Spend from address. If I sign and broadcast this transaction it will wait till the parent transactions get confirmed (may be for ages) And this makes IMPOSSIBLE further use of Electrum till those coins are confirmed. So if you want to punish someone just send him one satoshi with zero transaction fee
|
|
|
I sure am connected and there are plenty addresses with sufficient and confirmed balance to send from.
My Mac is El Capitan (10.11) The latest Electrum requires Mac OS 10.13, Hopefully I will upgrade my mac soon first.
But I wonder that Electrum is the most popular wallet and if this is a bag there is no way I'm the first one who noticed that. I searched for this issue on github as well so I will ask them tomorrow. I believe that highly likely I just missed something
|
|
|
I have Electrum Version 3.3.8 on Mac
Some addresses have unconfirmed coins, I used "Freeze" option for those addresses, then I checked "Spend only confirmed coins" in Electrum properties. Anyway, Electrum sends from addresses including frozen ones. It also can be seen in transaction preview under "Send" tab before the transaction is sent. If I use "Spend from" the transaction will not be broadcasted and I receive an error something like "Server returned an error, try to select another server..."
Is this a bug? I saw on this forum that people use these features and everything seems to be fine.
What's wrong with my electrum or what I missed? Please help!!!
|
|
|
this should be: SHA256(00201ffbb7eba8c08ccdd522ff79bc04e053d178992451c71020a6f8e831e359a9e4)
where 0x00 is OP_0, 0x20 is the size of the data (hash) to push and 1ff... to the end is the 32 byte hash. and the result of this hash is 32afd5ba9b3dd392109682fb4f84ea5b32bc17f9dab5afca9d06b137b6dd8490
Thanks a lot! It works! But as for P2WPKH - if I use RIPEMD160(SHA256(0x00 + 0x14 + Pubkeyhash)) the server says that the hash is invalid. If I exclude RIPEMD160 - just like in your example but the size is replaced to 0x14 - everything works. for example this address bc1qa24tsgchvuxsaccp8vrnkfd85hrcpafg20kmjw shows the correct balance. pubkeyhash: eaaab82317670d0ee3013b073b25a7a5c780f528 hash = SHA256(0014eaaab82317670d0ee3013b073b25a7a5c780f528)) => e9576bdfa6b6ad206e2ff012b4584d8eaed15c49e3b53e461af43a0189bcfbaf Just wonder what's wrong with ripemd160?
|
|
|
it is the same exact process with only one difference the "script" part. you have to build a P2W{X}H script where {X} is pubkey or script. if your bech32 address is a P2WPKH equivalent address then your script is going to be this: where hash is the result of RIPEMD160(SHA256(pubkey)) and if your bech32 address is a P2WSH then your script is: where hash is the SHA256(script) now that you have your script, hash it using SHA256 just like the example in docs, reverse it and send that to server. i believe this should work. I enquire the balance of P2WSH like this: Address: bc1qrlam06agczxvm4fzlaumcp8q20gh3xfy28r3qg9xlr5rrc6e48jq4ghzey Pubkeyhash: 1ffbb7eba8c08ccdd522ff79bc04e053d178992451c71020a6f8e831e359a9e4 Hash = SHA256(HEX2BIN(Pubkeyhash)) = 4899cf970298cf69b162d33b16db0c917935d11ce5908d63c7fba1893b23b581 Then I flip it to reverse its endianness: 81b5233b89a1fbc7638d90e51cd13579910cdb163bd362b169cf980297cf9948 Then I send it to Electrumx as an argument of blockchain.scripthash.get_balance and it returns zero while this address for sure has some positive balance No error message but something is wrong with the hashes I guess
|
|
|
Who knows how to enquire electrumx to get balance of Segwit addresses - p2wsh or p2wpkh? In case of legacy addresses - it is described hereSo, how to build 'scripthash' from bech32 address to send this request? blockchain.scripthash.get_balance(scripthash)
|
|
|
MAC OS El Capitan Electrum 3.3.8 For some mysterious reason there are two processes of Electrum as shown in the screenshot Is that normal? $ ps aux | grep -i electrum username 6953 0.9 1.0 2792496 43352 ?? S 1:28PM 0:15.79 /Applications/Electrum.app/Contents/MacOS/Electrum username 6951 0.0 0.2 2531360 6876 ?? S 1:28PM 0:00.90 /Applications/Electrum.app/Contents/MacOS/Electrum
One of the processes is always "Not responding" and it is the parent of another one. If I kill either of them, then both processes will be terminated. IMHO it was only one process in the past. Being little bit paranoid I installed Eset antivirus but it found no suspicious process (I did not scan the full disk as it takes ages and it heats the laptop like a pan) Has anybody notices that as well?
|
|
|
Thanks a lot! I finally managed to hash it like this: $p2pkh = sprintf("76a914%s88ac", $hash160); $hash = hash('sha256', hex2bin($p2pkh)); $hsah = ReverseEndianness($hash);
function ReverseEndianness($num) { $strlen = strlen($num); if ($strlen % 2) { throw new \Exception('ReverseEndianness: input string must have an even length'); } $r = ''; for ($i = strlen($num); $i>=0; $i=$i-2) { $r .= substr($num, $i, 2); } return $r; }
|
|
|
now you hash it using the hash you specified for the server (it is apparently SHA256 by default) Code: SHA256('76a91462e907b15cbf27d5425399ebf6f0fb50ebb88f1888ac') = 6191c3b590bfcfa0475e877c302da1e323497acf3b42c08d8fa28e364edf018b
But I failed to get it using sha256. For example in PHP: hash('sha256', '76a91462e907b15cbf27d5425399ebf6f0fb50ebb88f1888ac')
gives: 5f3f330fccb56d6b43f19b7e235f5b146ac92add3a3ab99380a39e7f7406959b
|
|
|
The description states: A script hash is the hash of the binary bytes of the locking script (ScriptPubKey), expressed as a hexadecimal string. The hash function to use is given by the ?hash_function? member of server.features() (currently sha256() only). Like for block and transaction hashes, when converting the big-endian binary hash to a hexadecimal string the least-significant byte appears first, and the most-significant byte last.
For example, the legacy Bitcoin address from the genesis block:
1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa has P2PKH script:
76a91462e907b15cbf27d5425399ebf6f0fb50ebb88f1888ac with SHA256 hash:
6191c3b590bfcfa0475e877c302da1e323497acf3b42c08d8fa28e364edf018b which is sent to the server reversed as:
8b01df4e368ea28f8dc0423bcf7a4923e3a12d307c875e47a0cfbf90b5c39161 By subscribing to this hash you can find P2PKH payments to that address.
Can anybody explain what are these numbers: 6191c3b590bfcfa0475e877c302da1e323497acf3b42c08d8fa28e364edf018b8b01df4e368ea28f8dc0423bcf7a4923e3a12d307c875e47a0cfbf90b5c39161and how to get them?
|
|
|
Just wonder is this project live or dead? The domain cryply.io was bought by another company this year in January. www.cryply-wallet.ml is full of trash
|
|
|
Подскажите, пожалуйста, а где и как мне создать такую транзакцию? Установить у себя какой-то package, или существуют какие-то API, или что-то еще? Bitcoin-транзакция может содержать два и более полей input. Для аггрегации средств на один Bitcoin-адрес и снижения комиссий, Вы можете создать одну транзакцию для передачи с множества Bitcoin-адресов.
Вот примерная структура транзакции, содержащей два поля input:
'version': 1, 'inputs': (2) { 'output_tx_hash': 'output_position': 'script': 'sequence': }, { 'output_tx_hash': 'output_position': 'script': 'sequence': } 'outputs': (1) 'value' : 'script' : 'locktime': 0
|
|
|
Может плохо искал, но не нашел ничего толкового по этому вопросу.
В планируемом интернет-магазине предполагается для каждого заказа генерировать отдельную пару private key + address для приема платежей. Очень надеюсь платежей будет много, только вот что с ними дальше делать? Переводить биткойны с каждого адреса в обменник или сваливать все на один адрес и потом в обменник будет стоить достаточно дорого, так как transaction fee на каждом адресе будет соизмерима с переводимой суммой.
Уверен, я не первый, кто сталкивается с этой проблемой. Пожалуйста, подскажите, как с этим бороться или ткните меня носом в какой-нибудь пост пятилетней давности, где все это было описано.
Заранее благодарю!!!
|
|
|
|