[scantxoutset "start" "[\"addr(bc1qsshluxkwzf3ksnm5gh8wpzt453x75f2gn6dlqw)\"]"]

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to figure out if it's possible to scan multiple addresses simultaneously with your own node rather than querying each one independently in the console such as the below command:


scantxoutset "start" "[\"addr(bc1qsshluxkwzf3ksnm5gh8wpzt453x75f2gn6dlqw)\"]"


The above example is done with a BitWise address for reference only and is not mine however I would like to be able to figure this out as this command takes a very long time to perform as it has to scan the entire UTXO set so it would speed things up immensely if there was a way to add a list of addresses to scan a single command rather than having to enter one address at a time. 

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

[1CKVszDdUp4ymGceAZpGzYEFr4RPNHYqaM]

Ok so has anyone else noticed that within just a few days after they moved their Bitcoin from their Coinbase custodied P2PK address ( 1CKVszDdUp4ymGceAZpGzYEFr4RPNHYqaM ) to their current SegWit address lists that are posted to https://bitbetf.com/ that there's already a discrepancy?  I guess Wall St is going to try to Wall St even if we know they're fibbing.  I mean as per my node currently the addresses they've posted (as of 17 Feb 1700 UTC) are as follows:

bc1qsshluxkwzf3ksnm5gh8wpzt453x75f2gn6dlqw
bc1qjjwhdve94cvg3d69shjrczn7wgqc8esujm72w8
bc1qxyzs02t7gdd9n203ucy03m0yw5zzllyn2k49hm
bc1qznvrh6eq0k88hwu9g44hk4mw5kemap3pmmljza
bc1q0gepug33c0tp6hf7l2f23ve9m0a0t7sv5ylwdx
bc1q9nzr8tzsx8pyk25ufps22p6un4k2y3ymh9lmze
bc1qgfqd5dyj6l9s2djwjjhg87tjjtzlshw5egkfct
bc1qdeurgks0dfqdeetvelhykuh90753swsy8k9kaz
bc1qzq39c6k0k3mxtqyuz342u774csrtljk4xhjvql
bc1qadu6va2re2slfxf7wxxrj30aknj954h7w6zh0g
bc1q46dggcuwgftce2uywx23fp4jq6xqda4xa8tuwh
bc1qxaqt6jynlh2z4c5ajhdwyr5qa3yqykytwvuml0
bc1qfa5x969js5lxn2vetql8ajerjcrn43hja56ex9
bc1q4x6el3tkests79gvf2vkz2revw47r2n5s50uku
bc1qgrjjf3xaf9ejmm5lcsfl0e2ep63t6zcxf7h9sw

Total value shown on my node as of this post is a value of 22,114.33078249 Bitcoins vs. their site bitbetf.com that shows they have 22,517.79 which is a difference of 403.45914782 Bitcoin.  This is a substantial difference!  If you look at it in USD then the amount of difference is $20,576,416.54 at $51,000 per Bitcoin or rather 740,292.0143486239 shares of the ETF assuming the amount of BTC per BitWise ETF is in fact set to .000545 BTC per share as indicated on the bitbetf.com site.  Either way I think it's important to watch these folks as closely as we can and to report any discrepancies ASAP for community awareness and vetting.

From my standpoint it's more likely that they either somehow posted the wrong total, or forgot to add the new address however that seems unlikely as it seems pretty clear that they're stacking 1500 Bitcoin in each address and the last one (bc1qgrjjf3xaf9ejmm5lcsfl0e2ep63t6zcxf7h9sw)  currently has 1114.33071307  BTC.  Any thoughts?

I've been watching the mempool dwindle lately and it looks great as it's now under a gig as per mempool dot space!  Perhaps its the filters being properly applied on the node runners using their filters (permitbaremultisig equals 0 datacarriersize equals 0) or perhaps the ordinals / inscriptions teams have lost their appetite or been persuaded for other reasons to scale back.  Regardless however I'm noticing another trend with the mempool dot space goggles lately.  While the amount of inscriptions has seemingly dwindled based on these goggles, the amount of taproot non inscriptions transactions has drastically increased.  Perhaps they've found a way around the goggles of mempool dot space to use taproot for transmitting these images?  The reason I ponder this is that during the ordinals / inscriptions peak, almost every single taproot transaction in the mempool was an inscriptions transaction(in fact I couldn't even see one that wasn't) yet now it's seemingly half or less the volume of taproot transactions are inscriptions.  I wonder what would have changed over these last few weeks to have such a profound impact on the taproot transactions.  Anyway I wanted to put it out there to everyone to see if they too had noticed this change and if anyone knows what all these recent taproot transactions of late are as they seemed nonexistent a few weeks ago during the inscriptions / ordinals peak.

Any thoughts on this would be much appreciated. Have a great weekend fellow Bitcoiners!

[1CKVszDdUp4ymGceAZpGzYEFr4RPNHYqaM]

Hi all,

Every since Bitwise has posted their ETF bitcoin address ( 1CKVszDdUp4ymGceAZpGzYEFr4RPNHYqaM ) I've been watching to try to get an idea of how much Tradfi was stacking (even though it is supposedly hosted on Coinbase and no other ETF has publicly posted their addresses as of yet).  Either way I've noticed that there has been a pending transaction ( 73e65b2aba2a493e5db4cd19976b608e5bc4925952bc3020354fe56d9cef8d25 )that does not show up in either of my mempools that I'm running on my two pre taproot nodes that run Version 20.2 each.

Both of my nodes are running on Windows based machines and I do have the permitbaremultisig and the datacarrier config options each set to zero however I don't think that either of these apply to this transaction (though maybe I'm wrong?).   Either way I was just curious to if anyone here would be able to tell me why that transaction isn't showing up.  As per mempool dot space it is a SEGWIT and RBF enabled transaction.  I've also checked my nodes to see what the  minrelaytxfee was set to and it's currently 0.00001000 which means that it shouldn't be filtered out as from what I understand the 8.23 sats per byte that's listed in mempool multiplied by the amount of virtual bytes should put it at > 1000 sats. 

Thanks in advance for your replies. 

Hello everyone.  I just noticed a few nodes that are connecting to my nodes are adding personalized notes to their User Agent Fields like they did back in the day during the Blocksize Wars.  Can anyone give me a walkthrough on how you go about adding these message?  My nodes are running on Windows 10 and Windows 11 and are Bitcoin Core Nodes. Thanks to everyone in advance!

From my perspective, Bitcoin is currently undergoing a multitude of attacks let's break them down one by one.

Political / Legal. The current political attacks being lead by senator Elizabeth Warren and cronies was initiated after being directed by Jamie Dimon (who has since been appointed as the AP or Authorized Participant for the largest BTC ETF). These attackers seem to be doing their very best to legally separate plebs from their sats while aligning Wall Street to become the custodians of our freedom money.



Technical / Social. The L1 Bitcoin network is currently being spammed by Ordinals and Inscriptions which is prematurely increasing the L1 transaction fees. This is pricing out many lower net worth folks from participating in L1 self custody. This attack seems to have a large amount of buy in from NFT pushers and alt coiners as well as a good chunk of the miners as most of the larger miners are being short sighted and looking to maximize profits in dollars as much and as quickly as possible. This has lead to a huge battle within the Bitcoin community and it currently remains to be seen how this will play out.



Wall Street Attacks. By now everyone knows that Wall Street is here as they have had their ETFs green light. If the first two days of trading are any guide of what's to come, then I'm afraid to say its starting to appear they're going to buy OTC and dump spot market in an effort to control the dollar price of Bitcoin. Just look at what Coinbase has said with respect to their reported $7,000,000,000 USD of OTC traded the first day ETFs did. None of course can be independently verified by any of us plebs. These ETF / Wall Street folks are asking us to invert the ethos of "Don't trust, verify." into "Trust us bro." In my view Wall Street would gladly take a substantial loss on these Bitcoin products so long by doing so they believe that it would greatly harm or destroy bitcoin in the process as Bitcoin is the largest threat to their way of life.



Great so what now? Any good news or anything we can do about it? Absolutely and glad you asked!

From my perspective the best part of all of this is that Bitcoin is still alive and is getting more publicity than any amount of money could have bought it! That being said I believe that all of this noise will get people to understand what Bitcoin is, why it's important, and eventually will understand that the only way to get it to succeed and create a more just and equitable world for all will be to hold Bitcoin in self custody. IMO they will realize that to do this in the most effective way that they will need to minimize their spheres of trust and will learn about how to create their own entropy with simple analog methods offline (such as flipping coins 256 times) and creating their own BIP 39 seeds. They'll also learn how to run their own nodes for verification and to transmit and receive their own bitcoin transactions. These actions will allow for the dollar price of Bitcoin to break free from their manipulation efforts and will eventually get us to a better bitcoin centric world that will break the monopoly of value creation and distribution from centralized control.

Hello everyone,

Before I start this message, I first wanted to wish everyone a happy holiday season and a very prosperous New Year in 2024. Ok now that that's out there, I feel that its important that I post related to the ongoing Inscriptions/Ordinals issue that's bloating L1 and, IMO, attacking the social, technical, and financial game theory layers of Bitcoin.

As I see things it appears as though they, entities funded and/or focused in TRADFI, are currently pitting miners against many members of the community and the generally accepted ethos of the greater good of bitcoin's independence of the traditional fiat system, and are currently complicit in attempting to fold our BTC freedom money into the fiat system.  These inscriptions and ordinals attacks are trying their very best to create things like "rare sats" (which attacks the fungibility of Bitcoin token) while also pushing NFTs onto L1 while simultaneously making every node runner responsible in hosting these potential political attack vectors. 

Also not to mention that with the currently (artificially high due to inscriptions IMO) L1 transaction fees, they're making it impractical for many of the lower earners / net worth folks around the world to attain self custody of their sats and thereby making them reliant on third party custody solutions which very much pumps the breaks hard on the self custody revolution that IMO Bitcoin is all about.  I should also mention that with respect to the higher fees over the last few months that I understand that eventually fees will rise on Layer 1 however it's my view that they will only do so in terms of fiat currency, not in sats or Bitcoin as the price of BTC should rise and eventually the large publicly traded miners selling them for fiat will likely be part of team HODL rather than team fiat.

Since currently however TRADFI seems to have their tentacles deep into the fiat price of bitcoin and are taking this opportunity (while their political money still has value relative to bitcoin) to try their best to get control of it by all means necessary (look at the current Elizabeth Warren attack on self custody initiated by the CEO of the largest US bank , Mr. Dimon).  To me it comes down to the grass roots community here to try to stave off these attacks as soon as possible. 

With all of that said, as a long time node runner in different parts of the world I've been noticing a difference between my node's mempool and what mempool dot space as well as blockstream dot info. After digging into it a bit deeper (with the help of the new goggle tool on mempool dot space), I was able to look at literally dozens of transactions in the mempool labeled inscriptions and then try to pull the same transaction on my nodes running version 20.2 and none of them were visible..that is until they're confirmed by the miners. The point I'm trying to get through however is that if you don't support inscriptions like me, then you might want to consider running an older version of bitcoin core as your node like me as it appears to filter them out of the mempool. Case in point as of now I see about a 1 GB difference between mempool dot space and my node (1.48 GB / 311,000 TXs on their site vs. 564 MB/81,000 TXs on my node).

As always, any and all feedback is greatly appreciated...especially relating to the apparent filtering of the inscription transactions on bitcoin core v 20.2.  Thanks in advance and again happy holidays everyone!

Hi everyone,

I've been troubleshooting an issue I posted the other day regarding a discrepancy between my two nodes having different sized mempools which led me to trying to use the maxmempool in the config file to double the default value to 600. For some reason the v. 20.2 wasn't accepting the option and kept the default 300 MB size.  I then decided to click the GUI button that says "reset options" button which restarted the node.  Unfortunately now when I try to relaunch it I'm getting the following error:

Error:  Prune mode is incompatible with -txindex

As soon as I click ok the node terminates and I can't seem to relaunch it.  

Does anyone know how I can get this node back up online?  Thanks in advance for your support.

A few additional notes:

- My blockchain directory is being stored on an external hard drive so I'll need to point it to the correct directory.

- Also I did have txindex enabled in the options file.

- I've reran the installation for the 20.2 version with no change.

Thanks.

Hi all,

I'm a long time Bitcoin Core node runner and was hoping that someone would be able to point me in the right direction as far as to where I could get a good summation for the various commands in terms of their proper syntax as well as a breakdown into what exactly each one does.  Of course the help feature is useful but I was hoping that there may be a more user friendly resource out there that's a good one stop shop with examples etc.  Thanks in advance for your feedback!

I've noticed over the last few weeks that there's been a fairly notable discrepancy between my two nodes that are both running on windows with respect to the size of the mempool. Presently I'm running a version 20 and a 20.1 and note that there is about 195 MB of memory usage for the mempool on the older version versus 158 MB on the newer version. That really seemed odd to me considering that they both booted up on the same date (11 days ago). I've also noticed how fairly frequently the men pool has been exceeding 300 MB which is the default amount of memory that the nodes keep unconfirmed transactions in. Has anybody else out there noticed this discrepancy? Better yet, does anybody out there have an idea about why this might be happening or how?

I should probably add that version 20.1 is not operating behind a VPN and is allowing for inbound connections versus the one running version 20 that is behind a VPN and unable to receive inbound connection. That however was never an issue before the last several months. Perhaps it has something to do with the ordinals spamming?

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

Hi everyone, I'm not sure if this is the right sub forum for this however I'm having a bit of an issue with creating Bitcoin PSBT's in Bitcoin Core (V.20.0) and was hoping to get some community feedback if possible.  Specifically what  I'm attempting to do is to use Bitcoin Core to create and send PSBTs via my air gapped Cold Card.  To achieve this I have used the "importmulti" command that is created by the Cold Card but unfortunately it seems to only create the command for a WPKH address scheme which I needed to modify to use P2PKH addresses.  

To achieve this I had to take the original command which was:

Code:

importmulti '[{"range": [0, 1000], "timestamp": "now", "keypool": true, "watchonly": true, "desc": "wpkh([fingerprint/84h/0h/0h]xpub/0/*)#checksum", "internal": false}, {"range": [0, 1000], "timestamp": "now", "keypool": true, "watchonly": true, "desc": "wpkh([secret fingerprint/84h/0h/0h]secretxpub/1/*)#checksum", "internal": true}]'

To the modified as per below:

Code:

importmulti '[{"range": [0, 1000], "timestamp": "now", "keypool": true, "watchonly": true, "desc": "pkh([fingerprint/44h/0h/0h]xpub/0/*)#checksum", "internal": false}, {"range": [0, 1000], "timestamp": "now", "keypool": true, "watchonly": true, "desc": "pkh([fingerprint/44h/1h/0h]xpub/1/*)#checksum", "internal": false}]'

Note that I also had to calculate the correct checksum for the modified command using the "getdescriptorinfo" command and after uploading it into the console windown and rescanning the blockchain I could see my previous transactions and also create and broadcast PSBTs.   What I'm now trying to figure out is a way that makes bitcoin core automatically create a change address that's associated with my Cold Card's change addresses just as Electrum does when you import the skeleton wallet into electrum.  If anyone knows any way to do this I'd really appreciate the feedback.  I do know there's kind of a work around by using a custom change address that you can manually enter in the core gui but this is sub optimal IMO.  Thanks all in advance for your support!

Hello all,

So I've been advised by several very knowledgeable folks here that the official website for Bitcoin Core is https://bitcoincore.org/ after questioning in a previous thread the reasons that bitcoin.org doesn't point to version 23 but rather version 22 as the current version of bitcoin core.  I guess that's all fine, however today when I was looking at the Bitcoin Core site and looking to upgrade a to a previous version (prior to taproot) I found that at the following link https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/0.20.2/ there is a version listed as 0.20.2 which can't been seen on either: https://bitcoin.org/en/version-history nor at the github repository here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases .

I started digging a little bit and performed the following check on the windows installer file

Code:

certutil -hashfile bitcoin-0.20.2-win64-setup.exe SHA256
SHA256 hash of bitcoin-0.20.2-win64-setup.exe:
6bee1cc525f950bb3c665d37b0dcbcecd84c8d238c2abefcce5ed05043290e8e
CertUtil: -hashfile command completed successfully.

A quick google of the hash produced came back with absolutely 0 results which is kind of abnormal.  In fact the only reference to this version or that hash of the version is on the link here: https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.20.2/ and in the file SHA256SUMS file.

Either way, I was hoping that someone out there might know why this version is MIA from the GITHUB list as well as seemingly no other mention of its existence outside of the bitcoin core site.

TIA!

Hello everyone,

One of the big concerns I've had with adopting some of the newer address types has been that (from my understanding) there has never been a standardized way of signing messages from these newer (SEGWIT et al) address types.  While I understand that there have been other wallets that have implemented their own signing schemes, as far as I'm aware there has never been one that has been standardized nor that provides one with non-repudiation outside of the P2PKH legacy message signing option that is build into most reputable wallets of today. 

If anyone has any feedback on this that would be much appreciated.  As for now I like holding onto the legacy P2PKH address so that I can prove ownership as desired with a standardized way that doesn't involve moving any sats. 

TIA

Hi everyone,  I wanted to try and vet some concerns I've had over the past few years regarding updating my Bitcoin core nodes.  It's my hope that the community here can help pet them to rest but if not I can always stick to my v.20x nodes. 

As you know there is no one single piece of software that makes bitcoin bitcoin, but if you look at it in terms of dominant influence over the ecosystem, you would have to say it would be the bitcoin core node.  That being said, here are two big flags I've seen recently that have me hesitant on upgrading from an older version of core:


- The first red flag issue I had when the download package the Windows signing key for one of their releases (sometime after v 20.1).

- The current issue is there is an obvious discrepancy between what bitcoin dot org and bitcoincore dot org list as the current version (the former states v 23 and the later v 24).

Obviously there have been tons and tons of changes since v. 20 and clearly the most powerful organizations on earth do not want bitcoin to eat their lunch (banks, governments etc).  That said I'm sure that these entities have been constantly trying to tweak bitcoin to their liking-whatever that may entail.  That said, if anyone has any feedback on the two noted concerns above I'd really appreciate it. 

TIA!

Hello all, I was hoping someone can help me identify the best way for identifying what the correct checksum would be in a bip 39 seed list when I've generated 11/12 words. Thanks in advance for your support!

Hi all,

I posted this earlier in the hardware wallet section but thought this might perhaps be a better area to post in.  Basically I'm trying to ensure that my modified version of the importmulti command which was generated by my ColdCard wallet and structured for wpkh (m/84'/0') was properly modified to not only import a watch only wallet wallet for psbt transactions into bitcoin core (v.20.0) for P2PKH spends, but also so that it should be routing the change to the same P2PKH addresses from this same wallet when initiating psbt transaction from bitcoin core.

Here's the command that I modified and entered in the core console with two success notifications:


importmulti'[{"range": [0, 1000], "timestamp": "now","keypool": true, "watchonly": true, "desc":"pkh([fingerprint/44h/0h/0h]privatexpub/0/*)#correctchecksum", "internal":false}, {"range": [0, 1000], "timestamp": "now","keypool": true, "watchonly": true, "desc":"pkh([fingerprint/44h/0h/0h]privatexpub/1/*)#correctchecksum ", "internal":true}]'


Note that the fingerprints, xpubs, and checksums were removed in the above command for privacy reasons.

The odd thing is that after running the above command and trying to sign my core generated psbt transaction on the ColdCard generated from the bitcoin core wallet that I disabled private key wallet which I created and imported the command above to, I was able to spend from the correct imported addresses in the psbt from the Coldcard but the change address shown on the ColdCard during the signing verification is a native segwit (bc prefix).  I assumed that the psbt created in core after my modified importmulti command would have told core to structure psbt transactions from this wallet so that it would route the change into a change address with another P2PKH address from the ColdCard wallet but for some reason that isn't the case. 

Perhaps someone on this board could have a look at this command and see if there was something structured wrong here?  I honestly have never used this command before and don't have much experience there. 

Side note:  I noticed is that when pasting an address into the "customer change address" field in bitcoin core's GUI where I had crafted the previously noted psbt from that core gave me a warning that the selected address is not part of that wallet (which it was).  Not sure if this is a bitcoin core bug or something else going on here.  Either way thanks to everyone for their feedback in advance.

Hi all, I'm not sure if this is the right area to post this but I have some questions related to using Coldcard and figured this just might be the spot to get some solid feedback.

First of all I'd like to say that so far I've been very impressed with the Coldcard wallet that I've just received so far. I did however see one concern in that the "skeleton wallet" that it produces in advanced > microSD> export wallet. In this sub directory, the wallet it creates for the electrum wallet is excellent in that it allows you to chose the bitcoin address type (i.e. legacy, SEGWIT etc) however this option doesn't seem to be available for the importmulti command file that is created for Bitcoin core as it only seems to generate a native SEGWIT wallet with the m/84'/0'/ path.

Perhaps somehow I missed the option to create a P2PKH address there but I don't see it here anywhere. Either way this is certainly an important feature as the P2PHK message signing feature is the only way that I know of to confirm non-repudiation for your bitcoin keys. If this option is not there, then I certainly hope it was just simply overlooked and the team is working on implementing it ASAP. If so, then this would be the first hardware wallet that I'm aware of that not only allows you to use your own node directly, but also would let you know that you have your own private keys via message signing P2PKH.

Another interesting observation I had was that during my testing with the Coldcard I tried to create two different Bitcoin core wallets and looked at the commands generated for the importmulti command.  During the creation on the coldcard, you are first prompted to be able to enter the account number that you'd like to add.  My first attempt I used account number 22 ( m/84'/0'/22'/0/0..) and it structed the command with a certain XPUB.  I next tried to use the m/84'/0'/0"/0/0.. and noted that the command it created for this importmulti command was a completely different XPUB file.  Is this normal?  I would of imagined that the XPUB it used would be the same but there's where my understanding of XPUBs derived from the master public key vs. the derivation path kind of breaks down.  Either way any feedback here on how to create a P2PKH wallet for your Bitcoin core node with Cold card (like they have for Electrum) would be very helpful plus any feedback on the XPUB would be bonus.  Thanks in advance all!

Hello all,

I was hoping someone could help me understand exactly how to sign a P2PKH message using Electrum and the ColdCard MK3 via the MicroUSB as I don't wish to connect the ColdCard to the computer directly.

I followed the instructions here:

https://coldcardwallet.com/docs/microsd#sign-text-file

However the Cold Card will not allow me to specify which address to use sign the message and the one it's pulling for me by default is not the one I want. Also since I'm new to Cold Card and what I would consider a novice with Electrum I went ahead and signed the text message anyway with the address it defaulted to. I noticed that this address was one that wasn't listed in the Electrum view of my Cold Card wallet and furthermore I wasn't sure how to load it into Electrum. 

Any help here would be very much appreciated. Thanks.

Hi everyone, I’m reaching out to the community to see if I can get a little feedback on a strange warning and some odd messages that I’m seeing on my Windows 10 GUI for my Bitcoin Core node. The main message that got my attention reads as follows:

Warning:  unknown new rules activated (versionbit2)

I noticed this warning today after the largest difficulty adjustment downwards in the history of the network and I also know that recently there has been some signaling for Taproot so I’m’ wondering if somehow this could be related to that in some way.

Additionally after reviewing my log file on the same node I noted the following observations that may be noteworthy:

-   Since block height 685006 I’ve been seeing the message that 100/100 blocks had a unexpected version

-   Then starting at block height 687516 I noticed the current warning starting in my log file.

-   At block height 689417 I again started seeing the warning again of 100/100 blocks unexpected version.

Any feedback on whether other node operators out there are also seeing similar notifications and what exactly they mean would be much appreciated.  Thanks all.

FYI this node is version .20.1 of bitcoin core.

Hello all,

I'm relatively new to Electrum and I just downloaded it and setup a new wallet which as you likely know defaults to native SEGWIT address formats.  Unfortunately the only way I can see how to create P2PKH addresses in the current version is to dump the bc private keys then create a new wallet within electrum and have the private key loaded with a P2PKH: prefix on the private key when restoring from a seed.

What I'd like to know is how can I go about creating a HD wallet with P2PKH from Electrum rather than SEGWIT defaults.  I don't want to load P2PKH seeds individually the way I described above as this too labor intensive and honestly feels insecure using a hot computer that can potentially have spyware on it / key loggers. 

In addition to this, I'd like to also find out what the best way to import (not sweep) a P2PKH paper wallet into Electrum.  So really two questions:

1) Is it possible to create an HD wallet with P2PKH in the current version of Electrum and if so how? 

and

2) What is the best way to import a P2PKH paper wallet into Electrum's current version.

Thank you.