Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • Jan 19 14:38
    nicolaiskye removed as member
  • Nov 15 2021 09:41
    italy starred ActorForth/ActorForth
  • Sep 06 2021 11:38
    JacekAndrzejewski starred ActorForth/ActorForth
  • Aug 20 2021 00:11
  • Aug 20 2021 00:11
    baby636 starred ActorForth/ActorForth
  • Jun 12 2021 09:53
    siraben commented #1
  • Jun 12 2021 09:53
    siraben commented #1
  • May 26 2021 06:44
    scherrey commented #23
  • May 23 2021 17:10
    Sameeranjoshi commented #23
  • May 21 2021 12:37

    scherrey on filepos

    Updated refdocs. (compare)

  • May 20 2021 10:11

    scherrey on filepos

    Added compiling to categories a… Merge branch 'filepos' of githu… (compare)

  • May 12 2021 07:34
    Sameeranjoshi commented #23
  • May 12 2021 07:16
    scherrey commented #23
  • May 12 2021 07:16
    scherrey commented #23
  • May 12 2021 05:33
    Sameeranjoshi commented #23
  • May 12 2021 05:32
    Sameeranjoshi commented #23
  • May 09 2021 17:06

    scherrey on filepos

    Add initial Makefile. Uncomment… Improve parallel builds. Improve parallel builds. and 7 more (compare)

  • May 08 2021 13:51
    MayaPosch commented #23
  • May 08 2021 13:45

    MayaPosch on master

    Separate unit tests into separa… (compare)

  • May 08 2021 09:56
    scherrey closed #17
Nicolai Skye
@nicolaiskye
The "ExtractDestination" and "Solver" functions in the "standards.cpp" file seem to look for 'standard' patterns, but this comment makes it sound like they can be extended "so long" as they also include a standard transaction
Nicolai Skye
@nicolaiskye

Never mind, it seems all the "standard" transactions are in fact hard-coded. From what I discovered in the BitcoinUnlimited code...
"IsStandardTx" requires the script to pass a check in "IsStandard", which requires the script to pass "Solver" which checks that the locking script is one of the following kinds:

  • P2PH
  • P2PKH
  • Multisig
  • FreezeCLTV
  • OP_RETURN (also called NULL_DATA or LABEL_PUBLIC in the source code)

If it doesn't match, it returns "nonstandard" transaction type, which the node ignores IF it's configured to do so.

So in that case, I wonder how many nodes are configured for "nonstandard" vs only accepting these standard ones
Viacheslav Litvinov
@litvinof
Yes, Nick, we have also found that.
Not sure any other nodes accept non-standard.
Nicolai Skye
@nicolaiskye
This message was deleted
Viacheslav Litvinov
@litvinof
The non-standard scripts are hashed and done with P2SH according to our Telegram discussion
Nicolai Skye
@nicolaiskye
So then my understanding is that it's current impossible to associate tokens the way we planned, right?
Napat
@SuperCipher
right
Nicolai Skye
@nicolaiskye
there's no other way of storing data in the outputs (aside from the already used op_return for SLP)
Viacheslav Litvinov
@litvinof
There will be only way with a 3rd intermediate transaction on bid creation step. That would let us store data on the inputs of a funding transaction. But itŝ a bit smelly.
Nicolai Skye
@nicolaiskye
is that possible on the inputs with only the opcodes between OP_PUSHDATA1 and OP_16?
I'm not sure how exactly that would look
Viacheslav Litvinov
@litvinof
It’s possible with a “standard” op_checkdata sig and P2SH outputs. Just what I mentioned in the BCH compiler telegram chat
Nicolai Skye
@nicolaiskye
Okay, that's interesting. I also could not find in the node were "OP_DROP" was disabled. In fact checkmultisig seems to use it. So perhaps that would be possible still to just push our arbitrary data onto the stack and pop (OP_DROP) it back off
I think I misunderstood how P2SH works. It makes a lot more sense now
merc1er
@merc1er

@merc1er Do you know how all of those fancy smart contracts with OP_CHECKDATASIG pass the “standardness” check? :o

OP_CDS is a consensus rule. Not sure about the "fancy" script you refer too but i think that should work

I'm not too knowledgeable on this topic though - haven't digged into bitcoin script much

Unrelated:

Is there an easy way of running testnet instead of regtest with bch-toolkit?

I just purchased a server - and am intending on running an instance of bch toolkit
Napat
@SuperCipher

Unrelated:

Is there an easy way of running testnet instead of regtest with bch-toolkit?

try comment out this
https://github.com/ActorForth/bch-toolkit/blob/4ceae7e50c2323f6cb21c30838948b7bce3ec570/bitcoin.conf#L3

Just the node right ?
merc1er
@merc1er
Node and rest
Ok, shouldn't I add testnet=1 instead? Mainnet is the default isn't it?
Napat
@SuperCipher

Ok, shouldn't I add testnet=1 instead? Mainnet is the default isn't it?

Right

merc1er
@merc1er
And will rest work as well?
Or should I change anything?

Node and rest

Note we never test the testnet before. So you will be our first tester.

merc1er
@merc1er
Ok, thanks
Oh but that's from a different repo
matrixbot
@matrixbot
Napat
@SuperCipher

Oh but that's from a different repo

It’s a git submodule the repo is already include in the bch-toolkit

Screen Shot 2020-10-10 at 1.31.54 PM.png
merc1er
@merc1er
Ok, will try this out
merc1er
@merc1er

Btw, there is a new bitcash update, including a change from @nicolaiskye :)

https://twitter.com/merc1er/status/1318096241872445440?s=21

merc1er
@merc1er
BitCash now supports regtest thanks to @nicolaiskye!
Ben Scherrey
@scherrey
Nice going guys!
Ben Scherrey
@scherrey
Interesting project: https://scryptdoc.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ Another attempt at a scripting language for BitCoin SV. Is that different than regular BitCoin?
1 reply
Ben Scherrey
@scherrey
Here's another one - not for crypto - but it's a concatenative stack-based language with strong static types and doesn't have garbage collection. Lots of similar goals as ActorForth and compiles to C & Verilog which is cool. GPL3 unfortunately. https://github.com/HackerFoo/poprc
siraben
@siraben:matrix.org
[m]
porc looks great
1 reply
siraben
@siraben:matrix.org
[m]
scherrey (Ben Scherrey): looks like just the spec right now :/
Ben Scherrey
@scherrey
Yeah.... something smells fishy. But porc looks interesting.
Ben Scherrey
@scherrey
Seems that this is the place to discuss research and protocol concepts for BCH: https://bitcoincashresearch.org/latest
Ben Scherrey
@scherrey
@nicolaiskye this guy Tom makes a case that the mempool issue for a particular app could be overcome by running your own node with a mempool as large as you like and it's only submitting to public mempools with such limits that would be an issue. See https://bitcoincashresearch.org/t/specific-needs-for-increasing-or-removing-chained-tx-limit/240/5 . Now my question would be does the gossip protocol between the private node and public nodes automatically negotiate this or does the private node have to be smart about it. Anyway - sounds like a potential "easy" work around for now and something for us to keep an eye on.
Nicolai Skye
@nicolaiskye
Yeah, if we’re running our own node I believe that would be a good workaround. If the user’s app is pinging a public SLPDB which is using a 50 tx limited mempool though, we would still have the same problem I think
Ben Scherrey
@scherrey
Yeah they'd need to point to the "official" node that we run.
Ultimately this limit needs to disappear or be so large that it won't be a problem. Elsewhere Tom points out that a related existing issue makes this potentially a problem for the miners so have to keep an eye on that.