Commentary about deleted posts

[NotATether]

In the case where one person deletes their own posts, it sometimes causes adjacent posts to be merged together, like this:

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

[moderator's note: This post was deleted but its contents weren't. Due to a violation of either rule 21 or 32 (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0) this post's contents were merged into the first post in a row you've made]

In that case, please show me a witness transaction only Legancy inputs in the blockchain.

You were right about only legacy inputs transaction since that's what the last sentence of the quote also says. It's at the beginning of the document btw. My question now is how to construct the witness in the following case:

but what if only some of the inputs are segwit?

= segwit

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

[moderator's note: This post was deleted but its contents weren't. Due to a violation of either rule 21 or 32 (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0) this post's contents were merged into the first post in a row you've made]

They're all UTXOs from a legacy address so I figured that the witness array still needs to be the total length of the inputs.

I am relatively certain that in this case you are not allowed to create a Segwit transaction. It must be a legancy TX!
Witness Field also not permitted in this TX!
Witness field may only be inserted if at least one input comes from a Segwit address.

BIP141 says this:

The witness is a serialization of all witness fields of the transaction. Each txin is associated with a witness field. A witness field starts with a var_int to indicate the number of stack items for the txin. It is followed by stack items, with each item starts with a var_int to indicate the length. Witness data is NOT script.

A non-witness program (defined hereinafter) txin MUST be associated with an empty witness field, represented by a 0x00. If all txins are not witness program, a transaction's wtxid is equal to its txid.

So if there is no segwit input, it basically means there is no marker, flag, witness field, etc. but what if only some of the inputs are segwit?

I am not sure what the witness is supposed to be in this case.

In this case, hypothetically if there were 8 witness items, they would not be specified as 00 x8 times, but 08 as the stack length and then each stack (containing the relevant scriptsig)?

And if only half of them were witnesses, then it's 04 as stack length and then the 4 stack items?

How does Core even keep track of which input a witness belongs to if there are legacy inputs scattered in the middle?

Do you think the moderator's note should additionally talk about this possibility?

In other words, I'd like to see something like this:

[moderator's note: This post was deleted but its contents weren't. Due to a violation of either rule 21 or 32 (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0) this post's contents were merged into the first post in a row you've made. This could be caused by posts you've quoted being deleted for some other reason.]

In addition, it would obviously be better if only one "deleted post" notification was sent, given the circumstances of the merge. Though I'm probably nit-picking here.

I saw dkbit98's topic https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5540122.msg65333946#msg65333946 but I wanted to create a new one to suggest this optimization.

[_act_]

This is a good suggestion in my opinion because if dkbit98 saw the deleted post notification with that written, he would not have made that post. It would be good if some deleted posts are give reasons they are deleted just like the one that you are referring to.

[ABCbits]

I can see benefit of your suggestion. But it'd be additional burden for moderator, especially if SFM doesn't provide feature for moderator to easily choose one or more template messages as reason behind deletion.

[UserU]

Ah, that explains why I saw that recently for the first time.

Got me confused as well.

[AVE5]

This is a good suggestion in my opinion because if dkbit98 saw the deleted post notification with that written, he would not have made that post. It would be good if some deleted posts are give reasons they are deleted just like the one that you are referring to.

That's a very good review of the Op and I've said this often that if Moderators can't explain why posts are being deleted aside the telegram notification bot that "post is being deleted due to off topic or kind of violent contents being against the forum friendliness", it'd be better if Moderators personally explains why the post is deleted and not living the response up to bot notifier. Hence I know, the bot response of why posts are being deleted is already programmed by the system which gives same excuses to every other Moderators to why posts are being deleted.
I just think the bots reason isn't enough because moderator may have some other reasons why the bot is notifying a different reasons.
But the question is, for a moderator to explain reason why he's taking down(deleting) a post, should he explain to the poster on PM or on the public board?
Moreso, of Moderators doesn't get it explained why posts is being deleted, users may not be informed particularly why their post was deleted and it'd be hard to take correction because most times post are being deleted based on my experience is just unreasonable and still can't find it faulty.

[NotATether]

Ah, that explains why I saw that recently for the first time.

Got me confused as well.

It must have been one of mprep's automated scripts mass-merging posts.

[mprep]

Ah, that explains why I saw that recently for the first time.

Got me confused as well.

It must have been one of mprep's automated scripts mass-merging posts.

While the detection of potentially mergeable posts is automatic, I personally approve and review every merge. Good idea in regards to the additional clarification - will add that to the template.

[UserU]

It must have been one of mprep's automated scripts mass-merging posts.

While the detection of potentially mergeable posts is automatic, I personally approve and review every merge. Good idea in regards to the additional clarification - will add that to the template.

Sounds good, although I feel that not having to merge anything would be good, just replacing the deleted post with some placeholder to avoid some questioning

Bla bla bla...

[LoyceV]

[moderator's note: This post was deleted but its contents weren't. Due to a violation of either rule 21 or 32 (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0) this post's contents were merged into the first post in a row you've made]

@mprep: can you add a link to the remaining post under the highlighted text?