Was multi-sig implemented after Bitcoin/Bitcoin-qt 0.7.2? If yes, can confirmed transactions spent from or received at multi-sig addresses be validated by Bitcoin/Bitcoin-qt 0.7.2?
P2SH (commonly known as multisig) was implemented in 2012, before 0.7.2. P2SH transactions can be validated by earlier versions. 
Topic: Can we validate all the blocks created till date with the first Satoshi client? - page 2. (Read 1495 times)
June 03, 2017, 04:52:30 PM
June 03, 2017, 02:03:13 PM
You can't. I know for certain that all versions of Bitcoin/Bitcoin-qt 0.7.2 and earlier will not be able to sync with the network due to an insufficient number of Berkeley DB locks which then essentially imposed a block size limit at around 500kB. This issue is what caused the March 2013 fork. Because of this, all versions of Bitcoin/bitcoin-qt 0.7.2 and earlier will be unable to fully sync the blockchain.
Was multi-sig implemented after Bitcoin/Bitcoin-qt 0.7.2? If yes, can confirmed transactions spent from or received at multi-sig addresses be validated by Bitcoin/Bitcoin-qt 0.7.2?
June 03, 2017, 01:48:36 PM
You can't. I know for certain that all versions of Bitcoin/Bitcoin-qt 0.7.2 and earlier will not be able to sync with the network due to an insufficient number of Berkeley DB locks which then essentially imposed a block size limit at around 500kB. This issue is what caused the March 2013 fork. Because of this, all versions of Bitcoin/bitcoin-qt 0.7.2 and earlier will be unable to fully sync the blockchain.
This is bullshit. Not just garden-variety bullshit, but military-grade weaponized bullshit.This is exactly what happens when people willfully don't read documentation as a matter of development policy.
It is exactly like the proverbial "giving people just enough rope to hang themselves".
I posted about this on the same night it happened because I was driving long distance and couldn't really stop for a full post earlier.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/no-recompilation-fix-for-the-lock-table-is-out-of-available-lock-entries-152208
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1616542
The "manual tweak" is exactly two lines. Anyone can apply it, because the recompilation is not necessary. All it takes is to create a short text file and restart the bitcoin client.
Those threads are interesting read for anyone wondering how Bitcoin ended up with a fragmented development community that we have now. You'll understand how the division lines were drawn and what methods of disinformation were applied. I certainly was enlightened on that very afternoon-evening-night about what was really going on amongst the leading developers and pool operators.
June 03, 2017, 12:50:31 AM
You can't. I know for certain that all versions of Bitcoin/Bitcoin-qt 0.7.2 and earlier will not be able to sync with the network due to an insufficient number of Berkeley DB locks which then essentially imposed a block size limit at around 500kB. This issue is what caused the March 2013 fork. Because of this, all versions of Bitcoin/bitcoin-qt 0.7.2 and earlier will be unable to fully sync the blockchain.
June 02, 2017, 07:57:13 PM
The original client had some bugs in it that were fixed later (some of them fixed by Satoshi himself), so I wouldn't want to use it to send transactions or build blocks.
That being said, I'm not certain. I *think* it *might* be able to validate all blocks and transactions, but I wouldn't bet any money on that. I look forward to seeing if anyone with more knowledge than me responds. It'd be great to see what GMaxwell has to say about it.
That being said, I'm not certain. I *think* it *might* be able to validate all blocks and transactions, but I wouldn't bet any money on that. I look forward to seeing if anyone with more knowledge than me responds. It'd be great to see what GMaxwell has to say about it.
June 02, 2017, 03:53:32 PM
Can confirmed transactions spent from or received at multi-sig addresses be validated by first Satoshi client, i.e. bitcoin-0.1.0?
If not, then should we consider that all changes made to bitcoin so far are not backward compatible in nature?
If not, then should we consider that all changes made to bitcoin so far are not backward compatible in nature?
Jump to: