Is this BIP65 sample script standard? - page 4.

var53

sr. member

Activity: 345

Merit: 250

Quote from: CIYAM on December 23, 2015, 08:15:26 AM

Quote from: cr1776 on December 23, 2015, 08:07:45 AM

I've seen blockchain.info incorrectly mark standard transactions as non-standard in the past, so I don't think their note is dispositive. (Eg multi-sig, iirc - don't know if they've fixed that yet)

Am hoping that is the case but the tx is still unconfirmed despite being high priority and the CLTV expired 4 blocks ago (it is a refund tx for a CLTV approach to doing ACCT).

Most of the blocks are full today so your transaction might take an exceptionally long time to confirm.

It took over an hour for my transaction to get one confirmation. It was missed out of the few small blocks with room for it.

If your test transaction's still unconfirmed by tomorrow then it's not standard.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: cr1776 on December 23, 2015, 08:07:45 AM

I've seen blockchain.info incorrectly mark standard transactions as non-standard in the past, so I don't think their note is dispositive. (Eg multi-sig, iirc - don't know if they've fixed that yet)

Am hoping that is the case but the tx is still unconfirmed despite being high priority and the CLTV expired 4 blocks ago (it is a refund tx for a CLTV approach to doing ACCT).

cr1776

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 1313

Quote from: CIYAM on December 23, 2015, 07:34:31 AM

Although I haven't confirmed it yet I get the feeling that one can make this or in fact any other similar script standard provided that it is created indirectly via a P2SH tx (so the script itself doesn't appear as an output but instead appears as in input when redeeming).

Hmm... seems I might be wrong about that: https://blockchain.info/tx/24a44ba982e4be2865c3c84fc408079871b49baa0d8a185ce45781228e8ae56e

(hovering the mouse over the little triangle displays: This transaction has a non-standard input.)

Sad

I've seen blockchain.info incorrectly mark standard transactions as non-standard in the past, so I don't think their note is dispositive. (Eg multi-sig, iirc - don't know if they've fixed that yet)

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Although I haven't confirmed it yet I get the feeling that one can make this or in fact any other similar script standard provided that it is created indirectly via a P2SH tx (so the script itself doesn't appear as an output but instead appears as in input when redeeming).

Hmm... seems I might be wrong about that: https://blockchain.info/tx/24a44ba982e4be2865c3c84fc408079871b49baa0d8a185ce45781228e8ae56e

(hovering the mouse over the little triangle displays: This transaction has a non-standard input.)

Sad

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

From the BIP section Trustless Payments for Publishing Data the following script appears:

Code:

    IF
        HASH160  EQUALVERIFY
         CHECKSIG
    ELSE
         CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY DROP
         CHECKSIG
    ENDIF

Although the release notes for Bitcoin core mention stuff about BIP65 it is not clear to me whether that means that the above is standard.

Assuming it is standard then if HASH160 was to be changed to say SHA256 would it still be standard?

Topic: Is this BIP65 sample script standard? - page 4. (Read 4771 times)