Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bug with handing of OP_RETURN?

2014-05-05 Thread Jeff Garzik
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?

2014-05-04 Thread Flavien Charlon
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?

2014-05-04 Thread Jeff Garzik
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


Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bug with handing of OP_RETURN?

2014-05-03 Thread Peter Todd
-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?

2014-05-03 Thread Mark Friedenbach
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?

2014-05-03 Thread Gregory Maxwell
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?

2014-05-03 Thread Mark Friedenbach
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?

2014-05-03 Thread Jeff Garzik
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