Erik Voorhees blocked me on Twitter, for correctly pointing out he has not honored his commitment (in writing), to ensure all hardforks are safe by adding replay protection

Erik Voorhees signed the following statement:

Some exchanges intend to list BTU and all of us will try to take steps to preserve and enable access to customers' BTU. However, none of the undersigned can list BTU unless we can run both chains independently without incident. Consequently, we insist that the Bitcoin Unlimited community (or any other consensus breaking implementation) build in strong two-way replay protection. Failure to do so will impede our ability to preserve BTU for customers and will either delay or outright preclude the listing of BTU.


After committing to this key safety feature, of strong to way replay protection, he has now backed out of the agreement. Erik now supports 2x, which does not include strong replay two-way replay protection. Erik then tried to twist the meaning of words saying 2x was not "consensus breaking", since it has consensus. This is clearly not what the commitment means, it uses the words consensus to mean consensus rules, not "community consensus". Besides, there is not community consensus for 2x anyway, saying so is arrogant.

Erik cannot face up to the truth, so decided to block me on Twitter instead.

Does Voorhee's word mean nothing?

submitted by /u/hoaxchain
[link] [comments]

Wladimir J. van der Laan: “In this version, it now supports non-segwit clients even after activation, by removing all segwit transactions from the returned block template. This allows non-segwit miners to continue functioning correctly even after segwit has activated.”

Wladimir J. van der Laan: "In this version, it now supports non-segwit clients even after activation, by removing all segwit transactions from the returned block template. This allows non-segwit miners to continue functioning correctly even after segwit has activated." submitted by /u/linktype
[link] [comments]


How to correctly sign a transaction? Error: 64: scriptsig-not-pushonly

I sent a transaction with far too low fee and it’s stuck in mempool.

I’m trying to do a double-spend with a higher fee without any luck.

My wallet: 15Zz2KP5iA7oVarmtmBvb9ZHUmQaSFL9M8

Unconfirmed transaction: 0b0177688485922027b336c24e765fdea8dc03d2ad79f87019705f2ca9fb970a

I’m using to create, sign and broadcast transaction but I get Error: 64: scriptsig-not-pushonly.

The transaction seems to be valid when I verify it.

Can anyone point my in the right direction for this?

Recent Questions – Bitcoin Stack Exchange

Do I understand correctly that mnemonic seeds are specific to individual wallet software and its versions?

I know mnemonic passphrases are used to derive a master key that can then be used to procedurally generate your addresses. If you lose everything except the mnemonic, you can regenerate everything and recover your losses.

But from what I understand, and as my limited experimentation has shown, these mnemonic seeds seem specific to an individual program and even its versions.

So let’s say one day I lose everything except my mnemonic and I decide to recover it all. I set up my a new pc and such, and look for a wallet program. My original program is no longer available because nyan cat ate the source code. Am I now not basically screwed because any alternative program won’t be able to process my original mnemonic seed?

So if I want to not take any chances and not be bound to any single platform, I shouldn’t focus on the mnemonic but on my master key, which I’m merely presuming is standardized and universal. Having to store this single long string of pseudorandom chars isn’t exactly an improvement over storing a csv of pseudorandom strings, is it?

And of what I’ve seen, programs like even electrum and mycelium are all but crystal-clear about what exactly you are backing up and what exactly you can do with it (on mobile – electrum is much clearer on desktop, though it still doesn’t say anything about the nature of the mnemonic for example). A button labeled “back up my wallet” doesn’t really tell me if I’m backing up either type of seeds or just a list of keys, or something else. I suspect a binary file specific to this wallet program at that moment. Programs relevant to the same thing (i.e. wallet programs) should really carry labels on all their features, pointing out what is universal/standardized/cross-platform and what isn’t.

Recent Questions – Bitcoin Stack Exchange

Unable to send ‘version’ message correctly

Few days ago I’ve found this article about using raw Bitcoin protocol and now I’m trying to make my own transaction with Python. But I’m already stuck on sending version message.

I’ve tried to use code snippets from the article. According to it, this code below should work, but Wireshark can’t recognize anything and there’s no verack response

import msgUtils import socket  sock = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM) sock.connect(("NODE_IP_ADDRESS", 8333)) # Shodan search 'port:8333'  sock.send(msgUtils.getVersionMsg()) sock.recv(1000) # receive version sock.recv(1000) # receive verack 

Maybe it don’t work because article was written in 2014 and now it’s totally outdated?

Recent Questions – Bitcoin Stack Exchange

Freebsd Bitcoind doesn’t read config correctly

When I try to connect to my bitcoind server with the username and password in my bitcoin.conf I get a 401 error. When I set an username and password in the bitcoind parameters(bitcoind -rpcuser=... -rpcpassword=... -daemon) it does work.

I also have prune in my config file. For some reason this does work. Also the rpcallow works fine. So it does read my config file?

When I add the -conf parameter with my config file I get this error:

Error reading configuration file: the options configuration file contains an invalid line '�� (I also can’t read those last 2 characters)

I even get this error when the file is empty

Does someone know how I can fix this?

Recent Questions – Bitcoin Stack Exchange