[~1 BTC Bounty]

[leventturksoy]

Status as of December 30, 2020: Resolved!.

[1714921222]

1714921222

[1714921222]

1714921222

[pooya87]

The address is a seg-wit address created with an uncompressed private key. This means that the outgoing transaction is considered "non-standard".

no, if the address was indeed created using an uncompressed public key then it is considered invalid and your funds are irretrievable.
edit: read this reply by @nc50lc https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192454.msg52742722#msg52742722 (they are not invalid, they are non-standard!)

[leventturksoy]

The address is a seg-wit address created with an uncompressed private key. This means that the outgoing transaction is considered "non-standard".

no, if the address was indeed created using an uncompressed public key then it is considered invalid and your funds are irretrievable.

Maybe a Bitcoin Core dev can adjust some code so it can be retrievable?

[pooya87]

The address is a seg-wit address created with an uncompressed private key. This means that the outgoing transaction is considered "non-standard".

no, if the address was indeed created using an uncompressed public key then it is considered invalid and your funds are irretrievable.

Maybe a Bitcoin Core dev can adjust some code so it can be retrievable?

bitcoin isn't centralized to be controlled by bitcoin core devs so that they could adjust some code and change consensus rules with a snap of a finger!
what makes your output unspendable is consensus rules that dictate SegWit outputs must all use compressed public keys. in order to change that you have to create a fork and get the majority of the network to accept that fork.

i am curious, how did you create this address in first place?

[leventturksoy]

The address is a seg-wit address created with an uncompressed private key. This means that the outgoing transaction is considered "non-standard".

no, if the address was indeed created using an uncompressed public key then it is considered invalid and your funds are irretrievable.

Maybe a Bitcoin Core dev can adjust some code so it can be retrievable?

bitcoin isn't centralized to be controlled by bitcoin core devs so that they could adjust some code and change consensus rules with a snap of a finger!
what makes your output unspendable is consensus rules that dictate SegWit outputs must all use compressed public keys. in order to change that you have to create a fork and get the majority of the network to accept that fork.

i am curious, how did you create this address in first place?

Old version of Bluewallet for iOS (Android also had the bug) it let me create it without error-catching it.

They refuse to own up to their mistakes or even acknowledge it.

[nc50lc]

There are tons of threads in reddit about it and there's one with a reply from Pieter Wuille:
Created SegWit Address with Uncompressed
(don't want to click?) It said that it's not against the consensus rues but the transaction was indeed non-standard that's why nodes are rejecting it.
So it's possible to spend if a miner will include it to a block.

A single miner doesn't have enough hashrate to solo mine BTC, almost all of them are connected to a pool.
Just PM/Reply to some of the Bitcoin mining pools operators here in the forum: Mining->Pools.
They don't usually wander in this part of the forum.

[pooya87]

It said that it's not against the consensus rues but the transaction was indeed non-standard that's why nodes are rejecting it.

that is really messed up! every single documentation that i have ever seen has always said "it must not be compressed or it will not be mined". now i went back and checked the out, they are all are ambiguous about it!
take BIP143 for example:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0143.mediawiki#restrictions-on-public-key-type

As a default policy, only compressed public keys are accepted in P2WPKH and P2WSH. Each public key passed to a sigop inside version 0 witness program must be a compressed key: the first byte MUST be either 0x02 or 0x03, and the size MUST be 33 bytes. Transactions that break this rule will not be relayed or mined by default.

from bitcoincore.com: https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_wallet_dev/#creation-of-p2sh-p2wpkh-address

P2SH-P2WPKH uses the same public key format as P2PKH, with a very important exception: the public key used in P2SH-P2WPKH MUST be compressed, i.e. 33 bytes in size, and starting with a 0x02 or 0x03. Using any other format such as uncompressed public key may lead to irrevocable fund loss.

the orange parts are the ambiguity! why did they do this?!

[leventturksoy]

There are tons of threads in reddit about it and there's one with a reply from Pieter Wuille:
Created SegWit Address with Uncompressed
(don't want to click?) It said that it's not against the consensus rues but the transaction was indeed non-standard that's why nodes are rejecting it.
So it's possible to spend if a miner will include it to a block.

A single miner doesn't have enough hashrate to solo mine BTC, almost all of them are connected to a pool.
Just PM/Reply to some of the Bitcoin mining pools operators here in the forum: Mining->Pools.
They don't usually wander in this part of the forum.

That was actually my Reddit thread. Interesting enough I have failed every attempt at reaching a mining operator. Thanks for the reassurance though, I'll keep trying

[nc50lc]

That was actually my Reddit thread. Interesting enough I have failed every attempt at reaching a mining operator. Thanks for the reassurance though, I'll keep trying

Figures, the timing and scenario look identical.
How about small mining pools? All you need is to get it included in a block, even an average 1-block per month pool will do.

[leventturksoy]

That was actually my Reddit thread. Interesting enough I have failed every attempt at reaching a mining operator. Thanks for the reassurance though, I'll keep trying

Figures, the timing and scenario look identical.
How about small mining pools? All you need is to get it included in a block, even an average 1-block per month pool will do.

I'll give that a shot, at this point I'll contact and ask anyone seeing as though my offer is just about pennies for larger pools who don't care about me

[josephdd1]

I am curious to know guys. How can pool operator dictate which blocks get mined? As far as I know they are not in control of the individual and independent miners. Would the miners get any block reward if they include this non standard segwit transaction?

The Bluewallet guys must be held responsible for this.

[pooya87]

I am curious to know guys. How can pool operator dictate which blocks get mined? As far as I know they are not in control of the individual and independent miners. Would the miners get any block reward if they include this non standard segwit transaction?

you can split bitcoin network into two parts: miners and nodes.
a miner is just a hardware (ASIC) that has computing power. the only thing they do is "calculate" (perform hashes) nothing else. but they connect to a node to receive the data they should hash. the node decides which transaction it should give the miner.
now a mining pool is a server that is running a node and the miners connect to in order to share the work. that pool/node decides which transaction to mine. for example they decide to only include transactions that are paying 2 satoshi/byte at least, another one could decide to include 0 satoshi/byte,... they could also decide which non-standard transaction to include in the blocks.
in all cases when a miner shares the work and they find a block they receive their share of the reward no matter what they mined (as long as the block was valid of course).

[DaveF]

I'll give that a shot, at this point I'll contact and ask anyone seeing as though my offer is just about pennies for larger pools who don't care about me

Sent you a message on reddit. Did you reach out to u/MemoryDealers there or here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=10310 ? He is more involved with BCH not BTC but he does run a pool and might be able to help.

He is not real popular here because of his pro BCH anti BTC attitude but he does tend to respond to people, even if it's a no answer.

-Dave

[leventturksoy]

There are tons of threads in reddit about it and there's one with a reply from Pieter Wuille:
Created SegWit Address with Uncompressed
(don't want to click?) It said that it's not against the consensus rues but the transaction was indeed non-standard that's why nodes are rejecting it.
So it's possible to spend if a miner will include it to a block.

A single miner doesn't have enough hashrate to solo mine BTC, almost all of them are connected to a pool.
Just PM/Reply to some of the Bitcoin mining pools operators here in the forum: Mining->Pools.
They don't usually wander in this part of the forum.

That forum is quite dead, where can I find a better list of smaller pools that are still active?

[DaveF]

That forum is quite dead, where can I find a better list of smaller pools that are still active?

Novablock.com is online a lot and active in their thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5183959.0

CK is on and active, but it's been months since they found a block.

-Dave

[nc50lc]

That forum is quite dead, where can I find a better list of smaller pools that are still active?

Aside from the post above, you can also click the author's profile and check "last active" date.
Just by looking, you'll know if the pool operator is still active.

Most of the threads may be inactive, but not the topic starter.

[josephdd1]

I am curious to know guys. How can pool operator dictate which blocks get mined? As far as I know they are not in control of the individual and independent miners. Would the miners get any block reward if they include this non standard segwit transaction?

you can split bitcoin network into two parts: miners and nodes.
a miner is just a hardware (ASIC) that has computing power. the only thing they do is "calculate" (perform hashes) nothing else. but they connect to a node to receive the data they should hash. the node decides which transaction it should give the miner.
now a mining pool is a server that is running a node and the miners connect to in order to share the work. that pool/node decides which transaction to mine. for example they decide to only include transactions that are paying 2 satoshi/byte at least, another one could decide to include 0 satoshi/byte,... they could also decide which non-standard transaction to include in the blocks.
in all cases when a miner shares the work and they find a block they receive their share of the reward no matter what they mined (as long as the block was valid of course).

Thank you for explaining that. I am not a very technical person when mining concerned so I was very confused. I would have given you some merit but since you are already high rank I think you can do without it.

[leventturksoy]

I'll give that a shot, at this point I'll contact and ask anyone seeing as though my offer is just about pennies for larger pools who don't care about me

Sent you a message on reddit. Did you reach out to u/MemoryDealers there or here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=10310 ? He is more involved with BCH not BTC but he does run a pool and might be able to help.

He is not real popular here because of his pro BCH anti BTC attitude but he does tend to respond to people, even if it's a no answer.

-Dave

No response on Reddit. I can't PM him here as I am a newbie, if you could PM him for me on my behalf I would greatly appreciate that

[100bitcoin]

The address is a seg-wit address created with an uncompressed private key. This means that the outgoing transaction is considered "non-standard".

no, if the address was indeed created using an uncompressed public key then it is considered invalid and your funds are irretrievable.

If a transaction from an address created with uncompressed public key is considered non-standard, then why a transaction to an address created with uncompressed public key is considered standard? I mean, if Bitcoin Core nodes consider a certain type of address to be non-standard, then Bitcoin Core nodes should reject transactions sent to it at the first place. Is not it?

[nc50lc]

The address is a seg-wit address created with an uncompressed private key. This means that the outgoing transaction is considered "non-standard".

no, if the address was indeed created using an uncompressed public key then it is considered invalid and your funds are irretrievable.

-snip- then why a transaction to an address created with uncompressed public key is considered standard?

Where did he mentioned it's standard
What pooya meant by "no" was already written in his reply: he said "invalid", what his "no" means isn't standard.
But later, it's countered by the link in my post.

P.S. Yes, most non-standard TXs wont be relayed but invalid TXs can't be mined.