error: txNew does name not a type (.1 BTC reward for solution)

[Hazard]

Initially, it was unspendable because of a quirk in the indexing.  That quirk has been found, studied, named, and must now be faithfully reproduced.  If I recall correctly, the current client now has special case code specifically to make those coins unspendable.

Of course, he isn't running on bitcoin, but on litecoin.  Litecoin is fee to choose whatever rules they wish to follow and enforce.  Litecoin is already not-bitcoin, so bitcoin's rules do not apply.  Also, I suspect he is running on a testnet, perhaps even his own testnet, with his own genesis block.  (Or perhaps he's the guy that has the litecoin genesis block key.  It would be easy to look his name up, but it is late, and I'm lazy.)

Thanks for the info.  I am confused as to why he's using talking about the Bitcoin genesis block (or at least the Bitcoin genesis timestamp message) if he's using litecoin.  In any case, if the litecoin genesis block is also unspendable, the same thing applies -- you can't spend it without a hard-forking modification of the rest of the network clients' code, and also knowing the private key for the pubkey the block reward went to.

Just because this is a bitcoin forum, and more people know what the bitcoin genesis block look like rather than some random genesis block that I create.

[1715394817]

1715394817

[1715394817]

1715394817

[1715394817]

1715394817

[scintill]

That's not the point of the thread, but Hazard works on his own blockchains

Well, I feel like that would have been helpful for everyone to know, to better understand what his goal was.  Maybe it was obvious to everyone else.  I missed where kjj guessed Hazard was using his own genesis block.

So, since you're talking about confirmations, I'm guessing you have some other nodes trying to mine the spend of the genesis block reward.  Do those miners give any error messages in their debug.log?  I'm looking at main.cpp, CTransaction::FetchInputs function in bitcoin-qt 0.6.2 and see several checks that could be relevant.  I would add printouts to trace through that function (if it's being called by the miners, which I am assuming) and figure out which branches it's going down.  Also, twobitcoins's suggestion about CTxDb sounds correct, or at least the type of thing that would need to be done to make FetchInputs() pass.