In testing with -regtest I tried to use block #255 but simply could not get it to accept the number (it complained either due to being negative or it being too big if I added the leading zero byte).

If you are able to work out how to do that correctly then please post here if you don't mind.

The CLTV value is an unsigned 32 bit integer (little endian) - when the value is large enough it is treated as a Unix time stamp and I would recommend only using that approach (as I found an issue trying to use the block number approach).

If we were looking at putting in the current time (approximately) then it would be this: 101c9f56

It basically comes down to how you want to do the script (apart from the CLTV itself).

With what you have posted above I think you will need an OP_DUP before the OP_HASH160 (assuming you are wanting what otherwise would be a normal looking Bitcoin tx redeem).

Well - finally we get trolled (as is to be expected on such a forum as this).

So we say "goodbye" to all the trolls by locking the topic (yes - sorry - you will need to create your own topiics if you want to try and keep on trolling me).

What exactly is your problem?

There is nothing funny about what you are saying at all - are you trying to have a go at me?

So your strategy is to just keep on repeating that.

Do you think you are going to make me angry?

Personally I feel sorry for you - as why would anyone bother to waste their time doing what you are doing unless they are paid something for it - which would also indicate that you must be very poor (as I doubt anyone would be paying that much to troll me).

Hmm.. exactly how does this post actually contribute anything at all?

Just look at the poster I am replying to above if you need proof.

So you agree that he lied and now you want to bring in a completely different issue to do with my wife to excuse him for lying?

Interesting.

Hint (for people wanting to attack CIYAM).

#1 - Get your facts straight.

#2 - Don't post bullshit.

#3 - Try again (because you must have screwed up with one of the above).

Seriously?

Is that the best that you can come up with?

@franky1 claimed to have source code he doesn't have (and that is now a fact until he posts the code to show otherwise) - what exactly have you *discovered* about my credibility?

Yes - the same private key can be used for two addresses (one compressed and one uncompressed).

I see - so your approach is to "attack the person" is it?

Probably that is because you have nothing else of any substance to contribute - or do you?

(let's see if you can actually show you have any intelligence at all - personally I doubt that you do but we could make a bet if you want)

So Ian is challenging the Cunt to a showdown.

As this board is about "trading reputation" and my post had zero to do with I am closing this topic now (I am not trying to have some sort of war with @franky1).

I have apologised for getting your friend (@franky1) in trouble so I expect he'll be fine tomorrow.

I have no idea why this was moved to this sub-forum.

I was only having a go at @franky1 in regards to a particular topic he was posting in (I guess I should probably have not created a separate topic).

Other things he does or doesn't do I would have no idea about so trying to make this something about his general reputation was not my wish (my criticism is just about what he posted in the topic I created so please don't see this as being some sort of personal attack against him as it is not).

I think it was moved to a Reputation sub-forum (which wasn't really what I had wanted but fine if it needs to be like that then that is how it is).

Perhaps those that are paying posters think that they can just wear us down - but I will not be worn down in that way. If you post nonsense then I am going to call it nonsense!

Oh - got moved did it?

I wasn't paying much attention - but I think it is time that some of us "stood up" to the bullshit.

Strange that I cannot Quote the poster before me (I get an error stating that I don't have permission despite this being my topic).

I think it really does matter whether someone is dishonest or not.

@franky1 has been proven to be a liar (until he can prove otherwise and he started this crap).

Yes - good point - we have drifted off topic due to that crap.

Again I would say that what is being developed seems a reasonable solution to me as I don't think that we have a crisis.