Maksim Solovjov [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2018-02-09 to 2018-04-11
💬 Posted a total of 3 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 18:11:38

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2018-04-11
📝 Original message:OK.
Thank you guys for clarification.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Karl-Johan Alm via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying!
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:48 PM, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> wrote:
> > Good morning Karl-Johan Alm,
> >
> > To clarify:
> >
> > Nothing prevents a miner from completely ignoring nSequence when putting
> transactions in blocks.
> >
> > Unconfirmed transactions are, by definition, not recorded in blocks. So
> if there is a transaction 0xFFFFFFF nSequence and fee 1000 satoshi, and
> another conflicting transaction 0xFFFFFFF nSequence and fee 100000000
> satoshi, miners can include the latter one even if the first one came to
> their knowledge first, regardless nSequence.
> >
> > Thus, in the end "full replace-by-fee", where nSequence is IGNORED for
> purposes of replace-by-fee, is expected to become the norm, and we should
> really be designing our wallets and so on so that we only trust
> transactions that have confirmations.
> >
> > The "nSequence=0xFFFFFFFF means opt-OUT of RBF" convention is only
> followed by fullnodes running standard bitcoind. Nothing prevents miners
> from running patched bitcoind that ignores this rule, and connecting with
> similar peers who also ignore this rule.
> >
> > Regards,
> > ZmnSCPxj
> >
> >
> > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
> >
> > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> >
> > On April 11, 2018 5:37 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 05:10:43PM +0900, Karl-Johan Alm wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Peter Todd pete at petertodd.org wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Or via full replace-by-fee, which appears to be used by a
> significant minority
> >> > >
> >> > > of miners:
> >> >
> >> > I was of the impression that final transactions (sequence=0xffffffff)
> >> >
> >> > cannot be RBF'd.
> >>
> >> My full-replace-by-fee tree ignores that. It also does preferential
> peering to
> >>
> >> ensure it's well connected with likewise peers, and thus the whole
> network.
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------
> >>
> >> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> >>
> >> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >>
> >> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >>
> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180411/bc0c76ff/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 18:11:35

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2018-04-10
📝 Original message:Hi,
I have few questions regarding ListTransaction RPC call and I hope you can
help me.
Documentation for the RPC call is here:
https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#listtransactions
1. What does it mean for a transaction ( with 0 confirmations ) to be
*trusted* or not?
There is such field in the response of ListTransaction
As far as I know bitcoin - nothing is trusted unless there are some numbers
of confirmations.
How does this value is set to true or false?
2. When does *confirmations* can be -1 ( conflicted )?
What does it mean to have conflicted transaction?
Is it about Transaction Malleability? Double Spend? or both?
3. *walletconflicts*. What if I add watch-only address to my bitcoind
process.
This address will not be a part of my wallet.
Now, someone will pay me to this address and someone else will make
Transaction Malleability ( for the sake of example, lets assume this second
one will be confirmed, not the original one ).
Will I get a first transaction in *walletconflicts* array when
ListTransaction will return me second transaction in the response?
Thank you in advance!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180410/8b44871c/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 18:10:35

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2018-02-09
📝 Original message:Hi guys,
I am trying to set up the bitcoin development environment on my Mac.
I installed the Bitcoin Core client ( bitcoin-qt ) and also downloaded the
binaries.
I face the following issues and hope you can help me to resolve these:
1) Can't open the configuration file from bitcoin-qt.
I have a configuration file $HOME/Library/Application
Support/Bitcoin/bitcoin.conf
but it's empty.
When I try to open it via bitcoin-qt ( Preferences -> Show configuration
file ) it shows me a popup with an error "Configuration file could not be
opened".
I tried to change the permissions: "chmod 600"...no luck...
2) I can launch bitcoind in -regtest regime.
But when I launch *bitcoin-cli -regtest setgenerate true 101*
I get an error:
> error code: -32601
> error message:
> Method not found
3) If I try *bitcoin-cli getinfo*
I get an error:
> error: Could not locate RPC credentials. No authentication cookie could be
> found, and no rpcpassword is set in the configuration file
> (/Users/..../Library/Application Support/Bitcoin/bitcoin.conf)
Hope you can help me!
Thanks
Best,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180209/17ad9743/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 18:10:35

- reply