A libbitcoin-server instance stores and remote the full chain off of python P2P network. Use the libbitcoin service remote connect to 1 node self. What is a prevout script, actually? I also use electrum to send off payment transactions. They do not seem to be testing user-callable libbitcoin. We subscribe to version packets from python remote node. Full Member Offline Activity:
From the config file: One meaning something else? You can fetch transactions by hash using bx fetch-tx. I had just hoped that the bx tool could do something similar. Running multiple tests in a one unit test obfuscates the condition under test. It can be built as a single portable executable for Linux, OSX or Windows and is available for download as a signed single executable for each.
Sign in to comment. BS is remote as mature as BX at libbitcoin point. It always required ugly hacks, and even then, it often did python end up working. Well, remote, there are the two data sets and remote there python the unit tests source code. For now libbitcoin will hang and not do anything. The code in libbitcoin-consensus is the exact consensus code from pythonand they split it out for libbitcoin purpose. No individual or group should have enough power over the network to compromise its original aims.
Can you please post a code sample of how to perform multi-sign transactions on the blockchain using your library. This is a necessary piece for me. On February 1, , the block-chain will be examined to determine the number of blocks supporting pay-to-script-hash for the previous 7 days. If a majority of hashing power does not support the new validation rules, then rollout will be postponed or rejected if it becomes clear that a majority will never be achieved.
I'm sure there are mining groups now who would accept certain more exotic transaction types. Even if multi-sign isn't accepted yet, I still need to get started on my code, so I still need to see a code sample using your library preferably. Once low-trust servers are popping up to take advantage of such code, I can almost guarantee you there will be a sea change in the Bitcoin community as various miners, exchanges, et al jump on board.
OK, I'm getting ready to finalise a 1. You can link and use libbitcoin in your closed source project, but the changes you make to libbitcoin must be public. I will give explicit permission through email to people 'myusername' riseup. Will be heavily documenting and writing tutorials soon. On the development front: This might not make it to 1.
Right now the project is still rough around the edges, but it is rapidly approaching production capability in a rough way. We will have to smooth out some things while using it and the API may change a lot early on. I will also be making a test client as a proof of concept in order to perfect the API better. Libbitcoin Python Interface [contributed library, not maintained].
Latest commit a51cde7 Jan 26, RojavaCrypto update for latest changes to stealth in libbitcoin. Permalink Failed to load latest commit information. Aug 14, setup. Context async def main: The settings parameter is optional. To subscribe to a specific address, then use: You can't perform that action at this time.
Everybody seems to be hating to work on the documentation. So, nothing new there ;-. There is a very small number of test cases in consensus and they should be self-explanatory. The important ones are as follows:. The test cases do not fully reflect what libbitcoin-consensus does. The important test cases are for what the user would want to use the library for.
Imagine the library offers the function startsWith string1, string2 to the users, and that this is what they will be using the library for, then, a test case could be:. From the test cases in your comment, it is not really clear to me what for exactly the users will be using libbitcoin-consensus. They do not seem to be testing user-callable functions. What will the user trying to achieve by doing what? Well it's a Bitcoin SDK, so there is a presumption of some experience.
Given the readme and the terminology in the test cases, it would hopefully be evident that libbitcoin-consensus verifies that transaction inputs conform to consensus rules. There is also the idea that libconsensus from the Satoshi Client publishes these files for this purpose.
Well, when using bitcoind , the consensus validation rules are just assumed, I guess. I would expect the unit test to start with a list of valid and a list of invalid transactions. For each invalid transaction, there should probably be a reason field: The library does not seem to be handling block validity, but I suspect that this is because blocks are much easier to validate. My own experience with blocks and transactions is pretty much limited to bitcoind.
I think libbitcoin-consensus is an interesting take on the matter, but I wonder if someone just dealing with incoming payments would ever separate that out of a "full" node? Maybe it is just better part of libbitcoin , under the hood, just like in bitcoind?
Libbitcoin does not require you to understand consensus rules any more than bitcoind - unless you are writing a blockchain server. I didn't propose that you need to understand libbitcoin-consensus to work with libbitcoin as an end-user, or even as a developer. It was presented as an opportunity to validate our SWIG bindings, which are currently generated only for libbitcoin-consensus - mainly because it's the simplest library.
A single unit test would not list a set of transactions, it would validate one. Running multiple tests in a one unit test obfuscates the condition under test. The code in libbitcoin-consensus is the exact consensus code from bitcoind , and they split it out for this purpose.
I'm not sure what is interesting about us using it. For administrative purposes, each transaction tested should indeed be considered as one unit test case. This should not prevent the unit test programmer from reading the transactions from a file or a set of files and execute the test per transaction.
I think that the documented data sets could be quite interesting material for other bitcoin programmers: This is also surprisingly valid. This is also surprisingly invalid. It is not clear from the unit tests what function exactly is being tested. Is this also the function mentioned in the swig bindings? Does the swig binding mention other functions? It's really not that much code. In other words, all of the tests just parameterize this simple harness. The only positive test case in the set uses the following tx and script:.
There is no point in a suite of test vectors for this library, since it's exact duplicate code from another library that has its own test suite. A list of data is not sufficient for testing the corner cases, which are what's interesting here, as this is a wrapper. So this test, for example, does exactly what its title and trivial source implies I wonder how that would work in java, since standalone functions don't exist there?
In python, it would be less of a problem, if you don't forget to type enough whitespace in front of the function, of course ;-. See actual Python and Java. It looks so imported-from-C to ask the user to fill out the length of strings. What is a prevout script, actually?
Is it the leg in which the address was paid to in a previous transaction? It is not entirely clear to me what the function will return? Is it just an enum of int that is monstruously being wrapped or so? Or zero meaning not ok? One meaning something else? I would certainly appreciate it if I could use something similar with bx: I could really use something like this: Hi eriksank , You can fetch transactions by hash using bx fetch-tx.
If there is still something that BX can't do for you please let us know! From the config file: