Latest posts of: readyrocky

Show Posts
Pages: [1]

Bitcoin / Electrum / which brand guidelines should I use when useing the Electrum logo in a website?

on: June 28, 2017, 09:49:58 AM

beside trademark as usual?

Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Specify multiple outputs in bitcoin uri

on: May 31, 2017, 09:35:12 AM

Can I specify mutiple outputs in a bitcoin uri (bip72)? something like Code: bitcoin:1address?amount=0.5&1another_address?amount=0.0072 theat tells the wallet to create a tx with these two outputs?

Bitcoin / Electrum / Testnet support.

on: March 11, 2017, 12:27:04 PM

I want to test Electrum without the risk of losing money. I love Electrum. I know there's testnet servers out there but I can't find a Electrum wallet for testnet. It would be awesome. any thoughts?

Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: BIP45 or 44?

on: March 09, 2017, 05:38:29 PM

Quote from: Abdussamad on March 09, 2017, 04:00:57 PM Quote from: readyrocky on March 09, 2017, 03:14:40 PM Quote from: Abdussamad on March 09, 2017, 02:32:38 PM Please read this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1816926.msg18101203#msg18101203 It answers your implied questions too. That would be for the standard wallets, but what about the multisigs? is there any cosigner index implied? that post didn't point that out. The derivation path is the same for multisig addresses. If you want to check for yourself then restore a wallet with the following xprivs: a: xprv9s21ZrQH143K2j4ApvAWXbXnRQxxY1175NJFyzRSL3copkzRrmR9iFju2bPKMThZZ5X8dBHY8Hn So3Tp1mosezGpbhMxjFewR7fWsWqVuzd b: xprv9s21ZrQH143K2dEFaB8GQ9FmTdLyMijhPngdimqyUiwXgh5rmh92n4x6JEWutHeDi2qAAHPv92S 3SuhNuktYZt22p2jgWMoK5WkDXBnkj4S The above two are generated using bip32.org (passphrase a and b resp.) The first address pubkeys of the above two are (m/0/0): a0: 0223bb76b4e6844a6bde363057fab2aa5df5bc3a7e89c7e8124f6265f8080065fa b0: 0246277670f2d0ff5e86af5e82f8f98d3e1cd90d0b0f252df6518fd842568a5551 And the resulting address is 3Nw1BqfMgdLDAsu67g74dJLxSPAxQEmfZz. This is what you will see in electrum as well as on coinbin: https://coinb.in/#newMultiSig it works. thanks for your patience.

Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: BIP45 or 44?

on: March 09, 2017, 03:14:40 PM

Quote from: Abdussamad on March 09, 2017, 02:32:38 PM Please read this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1816926.msg18101203#msg18101203 It answers your implied questions too. That would be for the standard wallets, but what about the multisigs? is there any cosigner index implied? that post didn't point that out.

Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: BIP45 or 44?

on: March 09, 2017, 03:05:39 PM

Quote from: Abdussamad on March 09, 2017, 02:32:38 PM Please read this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1816926.msg18101203#msg18101203 It answers your implied questions too. you're awesome. thanks a lot.

Bitcoin / Electrum / BIP45 or 44?

on: March 09, 2017, 12:13:56 PM

Which derivation paths uses electrum to derive multisig addresses in both android/desktop?: BIP 45: Code: m/45'/cosignerindex/0/0 or BIP44: Code: m / purpose' / coin_type' / account' / change / address_index

Bitcoin / Electrum / Electrum protocol doubts

on: March 01, 2017, 10:05:47 AM

Hi. Some Electrum/Stratum requests are not explained at the Electrum documentation, it would be awesome if someone clarifies: blockchain.address.get_proof: (what are proofs?) blockchain.address.get_mempool blockchain.block.get_chunk: (what are chunks? are they different from headers?) What is the utxo_root inside the block headers. I couldn't find it on the Bitcoin protocol wiki. thanks.

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoinbook P2SH(P2WPKH/P2WSH) example??

on: February 18, 2017, 10:24:38 AM

Fixed https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook/commit/49e8b5653347b21ca9d2bf34384a5e0a21b5fa3e

Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: tx not confirmed long time..

on: February 08, 2017, 06:00:51 PM

Quote from: crazybtrade on February 08, 2017, 04:41:44 AM Quote from: achow101 on February 08, 2017, 04:38:03 AM Quote from: crazybtrade on February 08, 2017, 03:30:23 AM I tried this, not helped.. because pruned mode. what will try`-reindex` ? Reindexing will not help and cannot be done with a pruned node as well. All you can do now is wait as you will not be able to create any double spending transaction. You can ask a miner for help, I linked to two of them who may be able to help you in an earlier post. i contacted them, wait answer.. i can create double spending transaction but i don't know how make it.. Looking at the sequence number I think the tx is not replaceable by fee. Is important that the software you use sets the sequence number below 0xffffffff - 1. Then that txs can be double spent (when unconfirmed) and replace with higher fee for faster confirmation. You may need to adapt your software for that or use a bip125 compatible wallet.

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Configure Core not to download blocks or relay tx automatically

on: January 26, 2017, 09:51:29 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 25, 2017, 06:33:41 AM https://github.com/laanwj/bitcoin-submittx Thanks a lot!

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Configure Core not to download blocks or relay tx automatically

on: January 24, 2017, 06:48:31 PM

More basically: how can I broadcast a tx without having to bear with the burden of a full node and without relying to public APIs? Can this be achieved with Core and some confs like -prune:<N> ?

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoinbook P2SH(P2WPKH/P2WSH) example??

on: January 20, 2017, 07:19:45 PM

Quote from: achow101 on January 20, 2017, 05:57:53 PM Quote from: readyrocky on January 20, 2017, 04:25:40 PM Quote from: achow101 on January 20, 2017, 04:13:46 PM Double check that you are hashing everything correctly and that all of the hashes match up to what they say they should be. You should also take a look in the actual BIP where this is specified: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#P2WPKH_nested_in_BIP16_P2SH Yes, I'm not even getting the right hash160 of the segwit program (according to the book example) but it seems that I'm following the right process (the lib author hadn't seen anything wrong with my code). The process I'm following: 1) Create segwit program with the pubkeyhash and the version number provided in the book: Code: OP_0 0x14 0xab68025513c3dbd2f7b92a94e0581f5d50f654e7 2) Getting the hash160 of 1) (not matching from here below): Code: 3e0547268b3b19288b3adef9719ec8659f4b2b0b 3) Embedding 2) in a p2sh script: Code: OP_HASH160 0x14 0x3e0547268b3b19288b3adef9719ec8659f4b2b0b OP_EQUAL 4) Obtaining the address from 3): Code: 37Lx99uaGn5avKBxiW26HjedQE3LrDCZru Using bcoin lib. Yes. This is correct. It looks like there is an error in book. Ok, issue updated, just in case...

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoinbook P2SH(P2WPKH/P2WSH) example??

on: January 20, 2017, 04:25:40 PM

Quote from: achow101 on January 20, 2017, 04:13:46 PM Double check that you are hashing everything correctly and that all of the hashes match up to what they say they should be. You should also take a look in the actual BIP where this is specified: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#P2WPKH_nested_in_BIP16_P2SH Yes, I'm not even getting the right hash160 of the segwit program (according to the book example) but it seems that I'm following the right process (the lib author hadn't seen anything wrong with my code). The process I'm following: 1) Create segwit program with the pubkeyhash and the version number provided in the book: Code: OP_0 0x14 0xab68025513c3dbd2f7b92a94e0581f5d50f654e7 2) Getting the hash160 of 1) (not matching from here below): Code: 3e0547268b3b19288b3adef9719ec8659f4b2b0b 3) Embedding 2) in a p2sh script: Code: OP_HASH160 0x14 0x3e0547268b3b19288b3adef9719ec8659f4b2b0b OP_EQUAL 4) Obtaining the address from 3): Code: 37Lx99uaGn5avKBxiW26HjedQE3LrDCZru Using bcoin lib.

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Bitcoinbook P2SH(P2WPKH/P2WSH) example??

on: January 20, 2017, 12:42:23 PM

I'm trying to replicate the example on Andreas bitcoinbook dev branch, about upgrading to segwit addresses but without success. Someone can please confirm that the example at least is correct? https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook/blob/develop/segwit.asciidoc#pay-to-witness-public-key-hash-inside-pay-to-script-hash For example, in the P2WPKH case, the final P2SH(P2WPKH) the book says the resulting address is 3AzZFY4WJJZbVr2A6qBTbdkYRpMLbdg6gD but I'm getting 37Lx99uaGn5avKBxiW26HjedQE3LrDCZru . I checked that address and the hash coincides with the base58 encoding, so can someone make a full example confirmation? I think I'm getting the p2wpkh program hash wrong. you can watch my code on the issue i linked below. I opened an issue but the last commit is from 3 months ago: https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook/issues/228

Pages: [1]