Bitcoin-core team is considering dropping support for 32-bit x86 Linux Bitcoin binaries.
I'm just relaying here in case someone who's not subscribed to the bitcoin-core-dev mailing list is still relying on it.

Quote from MarcoFalke's mail to the list:

Now that other major software projects and operating systems dropped
support for 32-bit Linux, is there anyone still using the statically
compiled i686 Linux gitian binaries?

None of the developers are running 32-bit Linux on a daily basis, and
testing is getting harder as neither Ubuntu, nor latest Fedora have
32-bit releases of their operating system.

Unless someone requires the gitian binaries, I'd suggest to drop them.
If anyone remains on a 32-bit Linux platform, they can build (and
test!, with `make check` and `./test/functional/test_runner.py`) from
source. This is even possible on systems with less then 1GB of RAM,
see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/build-unix.md#memory-requirements
and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17504

Hi,

I've been "using" (quoted because it's more tweaking than real use) the Lightning network for about a year and I still have a question that I could not get answered to. Lightning network is a great mean of payments, but what about getting paid for the average user ? You need to get someone open and fund a channel with you but since you are just a random guy you won't convince anybody, or maybe just another random guy. If you want
, let's say, withdraw some funds from a website (a big, famous one) : this website has to fund a channel with you, which it won't do because it has a cost (some bitcoins locked, not talking about on-chain transactions fees), or with the guy that funded a channel with you, which it won't do for the same reasons.

If the Lightning network becomes more popular, how could be solved this problem (that the average user could just be the payer and not the payee) ? Would it lead to the fact that you would have to pay to get a well-connected node opening a channel with you ? Am I missing something ?

[Nov 2020]

Hi,

I was helping a friend of mine today which is working on creating a crowfunding system with anyonecanpay transactions.
I have some difficulties to understand the purpose of such a transaction, and the use of the differents SIGHASH types (SINGLE, NONE, ALL) (link) for it.
I have read about anyonecanpay transactions in "Mastering Bitcoin" by Andreas Antonopoulos, but haven't heard about it since and, as my friend pointed out, it is quite difficult to find some implementations/details about.

Has anyone more informations about it please ?


EDIT (Nov 2020)
Signing a transaction with the ANYONECANPAY | ALL sighash flag (a modifier for the signature) allows you to only sign the input you are actually signing. Not the entire set of inputs, this way one can attach new inputs without invalidating the signature.
This can be used for donations mechanisms or fee-bumping for example.

Contrary to what aliashraf is saying below, it *is* safe to use.

[très mal]

Salut,

Dans le cadre de meetups que j'organise à l'INSA Lyon (nommés "Shiba to lion"), j'ai fait une attaque à 51% sur le réseau Insacoin. Etant donné que c'est un sujet qui a beaucoup buzzé et qui est très mal compris, j'en ai fait un article décrivant ce que c'est vraiment et comment en faire une (en théorie, puis en pratique à-travers l'exemple de ce que j'ai fait). L'article est en anglais (à la fois parcequ'un anglais m'a demandé un tuto et parceque je voulais toucher un audience plus large), mais je reste disponible sur ce thread pour détailler en français certaines parties si besoin et répondre aux questions.
Lien vers l'article : https://medium.com/@darosior/how-to-perform-a-51-attack-f8f739925110

Hi,

I had to prune a bitcoin-core node I run because of the available disk space. I'll manage to get more space in the coming week and I'll disable pruning. I was wondering : what will happen at this stage ? Since blocks were validated and then erased, will the node re-validate all my missing blocks and then every block on top of it ? This would make me revalidate the entire block chain.

Hi,

I am playing around with raw transactions and have succesfully created a P2SH output with the locking script set to

Code:

OP_2 OP_EQUAL

following the bip16 standard. Thus my script_pubkey looks like :

Code:

OP_HASH160 <ripemd160(sha256(OP_2 OP_EQUAL))> OP_EQUAL
OP_HASH160 5c9081ddd7c74d71e183b104abcc3f74be54c9c7 OP_EQUAL
a9145c9081ddd7c74d71e183b104abcc3f74be54c9c787

When trying to spend it I naively created a transaction which spends it with the script_sig :

Code:

OP_2 OP_2 OP_EQUAL

As the example  (for a classic P2PK the P2SH way) in the bip is :

Code:

scriptSig: [signature] {[pubkey] OP_CHECKSIG}

which I interpreted as :

Code:

scriptSig: [unlocking scrip] {locking script}

But I ended up with an error (64: scriptsig-not-pushonly) because there is OP_EQUAL, but the script will be evaluated as :

Code:

OP_2 OP_2 OP_EQUAL OP_HASH160 5c9081ddd7c74d71e183b104abcc3f74be54c9c7 OP_EQUAL

So here is my question : how to make the hash match without putting the script in the script_sig ? Moreover HASH160 will only hash the top item on the stack..

We hold a meetup in Lyon, France to celebrate the 10 years of the Bitcoin genesis block on January the third at the Meltdown bar (first district). You are free to join us and come take a drink, more infos (in french) here : https://www.meetup.com/Crypto-Lyon/events/257283117/

Hi,

I am still trying to send my raw transaction I mentionned here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5085308.0. I am wondering : what can be the response of a node to a tx message ?
I didn't find this information in the doc (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation#tx) but I get a message back when I send my transaction to a node this way (after having done the version-verack handshake).

Hi,

After achieved the serialization of a raw (non-segwit) transaction with just one input and one output, I tried with multiple inputs and outputs. I managed to have it working with multiple inputs but I can't figure out how to just add another ouput (for change) without getting

Code:

{'code': -26, 'message': '64: scriptpubkey'}

Here is my transaction serialized and decoded in a JSON-like way :

Code:

b'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'
{
 version :  b'01000000' ,
 input_count :  2 ,
 input : 
     prev_hash :  b'ee70fec3a5b90501e2e0074e21f6104b4ea4aceadc9250edc5f527250cc14148' ,
     index :  b'00000000' ,
     scriptsig_len :  107 ,
     scriptsig :  b'483045022100d52f6f23e0413003a2859892c33215f95475fa229e5bf7e42ce045f38c16eed902205a318926c3d9fac231fce274d82a7d84cf43acfeb71e43672ae213faf72a956301210388d662be197297bb54ad9927dee599f5b6731fbbb1da5c6c007fdb377054d2ff' ,
     sequence b'ffffffff' ,
 input : 
     prev_hash :  b'd8b15aa873de6a5f6ea0ec620083cff1bc5776130955ff44414f833500d5ac6a' ,
     index :  b'00000000' ,
     scriptsig_len :  106 ,
     scriptsig :  b'47304402207fed467bef68953c903d0f77f92c95e84bf2cf414936110ab89898526e095588022069f49e015aae8aff0f2e38275ca809c1b3bb2cfc48c6be47a6b0fec403ab6ba301210388d662be197297bb54ad9927dee599f5b6731fbbb1da5c6c007fdb377054d2ff' ,
     sequence b'ffffffff' ,
 output_count : 2 ,
 output 0 :
     value :  b'a086010000000000' ,
     script_length :  24 ,
     scriptpubkey :  b'76a9c0123db6acc268de513acdbbba06a2ebacb6d56d88ac' ,
 output 1 :
     value :  b'905f010000000000' ,
     script_length :  24 ,
     scriptpubkey :  b'76a9c0123db6acc268de513acdbbba06a2ebacb6d56d88ac' ,
 locktime :  b'00000000' ,
}

I first thought that it was because my change address was the same as the receiver, but even with changing it it did not work :

Code:

b'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'
{
 version :  b'01000000' ,
 input_count :  2 ,
 input : 
     prev_hash :  b'ee70fec3a5b90501e2e0074e21f6104b4ea4aceadc9250edc5f527250cc14148' ,
     index :  b'00000000' ,
     scriptsig_len :  107 ,
     scriptsig :  b'483045022100886d4b487aaba6c5b623e147ca41967c393efd8759489405e03f52457190c7ed022027070735086341b0e67a3add3889911153db4852cb4820dc53b0ccee89ad708101210388d662be197297bb54ad9927dee599f5b6731fbbb1da5c6c007fdb377054d2ff' ,
     sequence b'ffffffff' ,
 input : 
     prev_hash :  b'd8b15aa873de6a5f6ea0ec620083cff1bc5776130955ff44414f833500d5ac6a' ,
     index :  b'00000000' ,
     scriptsig_len :  106 ,
     scriptsig :  b'47304402201b96c8a2dd20c682188c2801469bad182d1b0ea059af5c9f733b9bb92bcb5f6802201e92feeb2fb98e85b04d712fcb45bff78a80bcf7fedfee66937cfc3a8bad129701210388d662be197297bb54ad9927dee599f5b6731fbbb1da5c6c007fdb377054d2ff' ,
     sequence b'ffffffff' ,
 output_count : 2 ,
 output 0 :
     value :  b'a086010000000000' ,
     script_length :  24 ,
     scriptpubkey :  b'76a9c0123db6acc268de513acdbbba06a2ebacb6d56d88ac' ,
 output 1 :
     value :  b'905f010000000000' ,
     script_length :  24 ,
     scriptpubkey :  b'76a91c2150951862e39c232e7611280c03f89a84c65688ac' ,
 locktime :  b'00000000' ,
}

I can't figure out what's wrong.

Thank you by advance,
Darosior

Hi,

I'm creating raw (non-segwit) transactions and am wondering if I should specify a version >1 for a tx paying to a script hash to be valid.

HI,

sorry to up the thread but I had the same problem and the response solved it, and I'm wondering : are all keypairs generated that way ? If yes, can the node's owner dump the privkey of all addresses generated by a RPC request to it ?

Thanks,
Darosior