Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bug with handing of OP_RETURN?
Correct, though that was somewhat unintentional. The pushed-data size is limited to = 40 bytes, and as non-pushdata opcodes carry zero pushed data, they are accepted. On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Sergio Lerner sergioler...@certimix.com wrote: El 03/05/2014 03:55 p.m., Mark Friedenbach escribió: On 05/03/2014 11:39 AM, Peter Todd wrote: The standard format ended up being exactly: OP_RETURN 0 to 40-byte PUSHDATA Please remember that the code actually does not implement the standard format (at least the last time I checked it). Any opcode after OP_RETURN is accepted: For example: OP_RETURN OP_CHECKSIG is accepted. -- Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available. Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ -- Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: #149; 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity #149; Requirements for releasing software faster #149; Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bug with handing of OP_RETURN?
Thanks, that makes sense, just wanted to make sure this what the problem was. On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com wrote: On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Flavien Charlon flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote: Outputs are above dust, inputs are not spent. OP_RETURN is supposed to be standard in 0.9.1 and the data is well below 40 bytes, so why is this being rejected? The carried data must all be contained within one pushdata. -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ -- Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available. Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bug with handing of OP_RETURN?
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote: Is it more complex? The current implementation using template matching seems more complex than `if script.vch[0] == OP_RETURN script.vch.size() 42` Not much more complex. The template matches a two-chunk script with OP_RETURN + one pushdata (or just OP_RETURN with no push). The pushdata is further limited to MAX_OP_RETURN_RELAY bytes. -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ -- Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available. Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
[Bitcoin-development] Bug with handing of OP_RETURN?
Can someone enlighten me on why the following transaction is being rejected
by Bitcoind 0.9.1 with error code -22 on Mainnet.
0100015594a8c1f84b926e84d70c3a3d5e517e0c12dc07cb1a774b587121fef08f91b86b48304502202f534407f6dee4d8932ec22491cbc15a2d31af2bade4e8d417e4b1955de57f5902210086e2f0210c169b85074429b1b1c2f32e19509d7ed19f7804ab7212bd183a012102add59262e234c0045d1f6a3d40a144b47ea0b4214916f55fb6029a079cc0b3cb0358021976a9140f763005e063382f8f4138f75cdc64d14f8ec16f88ac0a6a054f4101000102753d60861976a9140f763005e063382f8f4138f75cdc64d14f8ec16f88ac
Debug.log shows the following:
ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : nonstandard transaction: scriptpubkey
Here is the decoded transaction:
{
lock_time:0,
inputs:[
{
prev_out:{
index:0,
hash:b8918ff0fe2171584b771acb07dc120c7e515e3d3a0cd7846e924bf8c1a89455
},
script:48304502202f534407f6dee4d8932ec22491cbc15a2d31af2bade4e8d417e4b1955de57f5902210086e2f0210c169b85074429b1b1c2f32e19509d7ed19f7804ab7212bd183a012102add59262e234c0045d1f6a3d40a144b47ea0b4214916f55fb6029a079cc0b3cb
}
],
vout_sz:3,
hash:44130e812fa15f411c6accb739082eb81ecf074470cefb8e617ecf105690f6e1,
vin_sz:1,
out:[
{
address:12QkihKUyE1hAkv7wmaMj6V3QiN8FfMvpv,
script_string:OP_DUP OP_HASH160
0f763005e063382f8f4138f75cdc64d14f8ec16f OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG,
value:600,
script:76a9140f763005e063382f8f4138f75cdc64d14f8ec16f88ac
},
{
script_string:OP_RETURN 4f41010001 753d,
value:0,
script:6a054f4101000102753d
},
{
address:12QkihKUyE1hAkv7wmaMj6V3QiN8FfMvpv,
script_string:OP_DUP OP_HASH160
0f763005e063382f8f4138f75cdc64d14f8ec16f OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG,
value:34400,
script:76a9140f763005e063382f8f4138f75cdc64d14f8ec16f88ac
}
],
size:245,
version:1
}
Outputs are above dust, inputs are not spent. OP_RETURN is supposed to be
standard in 0.9.1 and the data is well below 40 bytes, so why is this being
rejected?
Thanks,
Flavien
--
Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get
unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bug with handing of OP_RETURN?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
The standard format ended up being exactly:
OP_RETURN 0 to 40-byte PUSHDATA
You've split the data across two PUSHDATA's. The standard should have let the
data be split up like that; pull requests accepted.
On 3 May 2014 13:04:52 GMT-05:00, Flavien Charlon
flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote:
Can someone enlighten me on why the following transaction is being
rejected
by Bitcoind 0.9.1 with error code -22 on Mainnet.
0100015594a8c1f84b926e84d70c3a3d5e517e0c12dc07cb1a774b587121fef08f91b86b48304502202f534407f6dee4d8932ec22491cbc15a2d31af2bade4e8d417e4b1955de57f5902210086e2f0210c169b85074429b1b1c2f32e19509d7ed19f7804ab7212bd183a012102add59262e234c0045d1f6a3d40a144b47ea0b4214916f55fb6029a079cc0b3cb0358021976a9140f763005e063382f8f4138f75cdc64d14f8ec16f88ac0a6a054f4101000102753d60861976a9140f763005e063382f8f4138f75cdc64d14f8ec16f88ac
Debug.log shows the following:
ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool : nonstandard transaction: scriptpubkey
Here is the decoded transaction:
{
lock_time:0,
inputs:[
{
prev_out:{
index:0,
hash:b8918ff0fe2171584b771acb07dc120c7e515e3d3a0cd7846e924bf8c1a89455
},
script:48304502202f534407f6dee4d8932ec22491cbc15a2d31af2bade4e8d417e4b1955de57f5902210086e2f0210c169b85074429b1b1c2f32e19509d7ed19f7804ab7212bd183a012102add59262e234c0045d1f6a3d40a144b47ea0b4214916f55fb6029a079cc0b3cb
}
],
vout_sz:3,
hash:44130e812fa15f411c6accb739082eb81ecf074470cefb8e617ecf105690f6e1,
vin_sz:1,
out:[
{
address:12QkihKUyE1hAkv7wmaMj6V3QiN8FfMvpv,
script_string:OP_DUP OP_HASH160
0f763005e063382f8f4138f75cdc64d14f8ec16f OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG,
value:600,
script:76a9140f763005e063382f8f4138f75cdc64d14f8ec16f88ac
},
{
script_string:OP_RETURN 4f41010001 753d,
value:0,
script:6a054f4101000102753d
},
{
address:12QkihKUyE1hAkv7wmaMj6V3QiN8FfMvpv,
script_string:OP_DUP OP_HASH160
0f763005e063382f8f4138f75cdc64d14f8ec16f OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG,
value:34400,
script:76a9140f763005e063382f8f4138f75cdc64d14f8ec16f88ac
}
],
size:245,
version:1
}
Outputs are above dust, inputs are not spent. OP_RETURN is supposed to
be
standard in 0.9.1 and the data is well below 40 bytes, so why is this
being
rejected?
Thanks,
Flavien
--
Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get
unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform
available.
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: APG v1.1.1
iQFQBAEBCAA6BQJTZTfsMxxQZXRlciBUb2RkIChsb3cgc2VjdXJpdHkga2V5KSA8
cGV0ZUBwZXRlcnRvZGQub3JnPgAKCRAZnIM7qOfwhQHmCADIcIs8w0FCDslGpbg1
audI1fAg/XnZ2J/862egYLtV2P0ooQnQz6g4kA0YIQGJI5tqyr9NEB6q/FVeKT61
3ecs3YsRtUkXmum6Wnq7QUGjvyMQo5nwLx2b3kDYEvb9v+aAKoBNKdz1xmp7jxE3
6bCx9eBeRBmhDWp1Xrr3VQI7KEUx4BfUxaLioYnCvaSuPsU+QQfXPFc+9ypRRclc
ymAj0VRGRPe2LQMNjerG4DMH8MRd5LOXjUxYV3XO3LyKSKvM18Lte+16w/uU3uBV
msIMbWEgm/DXI5fLWL7MFuLIsFrPs9BzjZSSZA7zQvntLtlQWCMnGeXsozjK14ol
lUl8
=0kuQ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get
unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bug with handing of OP_RETURN?
I don't think such a pull request would be accepted. The point was to minimize impact to the block chain. Each extras txout adds 9 bytes minimum, with zero benefit over serializing the data together in a single OP_RETURN. On 05/03/2014 11:39 AM, Peter Todd wrote: The standard format ended up being exactly: OP_RETURN 0 to 40-byte PUSHDATA You've split the data across two PUSHDATA's. The standard should have let the data be split up like that; pull requests accepted. -- Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available. Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bug with handing of OP_RETURN?
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote: I don't think such a pull request would be accepted. The point was to minimize impact to the block chain. Each extras txout adds 9 bytes minimum, with zero benefit over serializing the data together in a single OP_RETURN. In this case it's not a question extra txouts, its a question of additional pushes. Assuming you didn't get the push overhead for free, the only issue I see with that off the cuff is extra complexity in the IsStandard rule... but really, why? Your application already needs to define the meaning of the data— what point is there in making your hash commitment less uniform with the rest of the network? -- Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available. Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bug with handing of OP_RETURN?
Is it more complex? The current implementation using template matching seems more complex than `if script.vch[0] == OP_RETURN script.vch.size() 42` On 05/03/2014 12:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote: I don't think such a pull request would be accepted. The point was to minimize impact to the block chain. Each extras txout adds 9 bytes minimum, with zero benefit over serializing the data together in a single OP_RETURN. In this case it's not a question extra txouts, its a question of additional pushes. Assuming you didn't get the push overhead for free, the only issue I see with that off the cuff is extra complexity in the IsStandard rule... but really, why? Your application already needs to define the meaning of the data— what point is there in making your hash commitment less uniform with the rest of the network? -- Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available. Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bug with handing of OP_RETURN?
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Flavien Charlon flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote: Outputs are above dust, inputs are not spent. OP_RETURN is supposed to be standard in 0.9.1 and the data is well below 40 bytes, so why is this being rejected? The carried data must all be contained within one pushdata. -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ -- Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available. Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
