And some fell on stony ground

Derived from Bill White‘s bitcointalk notes on reconciling the interpretation and classification of unspendable scripts.

I have finished analyzing the discrepancies between my snapshot and sfultong’s. Details are available here.

Here is a short summary. There were 9 kinds of discrepancies:

  1. 620 of the p2pkhs and 17 of the p2shs I omitted were because they had 0 balances.

  2. 438 superficially seem to be pubkey outputs, but are unspendable because the pubkey is ill-formed; I included them as p2sh while sfultong included them as p2pkh; I will now omit them.

  3. 10 p2sh sfultong omitted are unspendable raw scripts due to clear errors; I will now omit them as well.

  4. 4 are essentially p2pkh except with a OP_NOP at the end; I made them p2pkh while sfultong made them p2sh.

  5. 3 of the p2pkhs I omitted because the pubkey while formatted in an acceptable way was nevertheless not on the curve

  6. 2 of the p2pkh disagreements is because the balances were composed of one std p2pkh txout and one pubkey txout, but the pubkey one was invalid so I omitted that part of the balance. I now omit these two unspendable addresses altogether.

  7. 2 of the p2pkh disagreements is due to the duplicate txid bug for coinbase rewards (I made both spendable)

  8. 1 of the p2pkh disagreements is due to the genesis block reward (which I accepted as spendable)

  9. 1 of the p2shs I omitted was described by sfultong above: the unspendable 5 byte script 76a90088ac

A v2 of my snapshot omitting the unspendable addresses from (B), (C) and (F) is here:

Useful list of specific failure conditions that illuminates where some basic machanical checks would be useful to coin users.

You might also enjoy (View all posts)