Pretty scary, I always thought nVersion was uint32_t in the protocol and
any signed value would be cast to that before IsStandard.

Also, is there any need to improve basic_checks() and is_standard() to
match the current bitcoind implementation at the current time, or is it
best to just allow bitcoind nodes in the network to filter out non-standard
transactions and only use basic checks to ensure we never accept something
invalid and cause libbitcoin to follow a blockchain fork?

https://github.com/spesmilo/libbitcoin/blob/master/src/validate.cpp#L53

I like
https://github.com/spesmilo/libbitcoin/blob/master/src/validate.cpp#L78,
even though it is never called, it has a very http://xkcd.com/221 feel to
it.





On 9 September 2013 14:09, Amir Taaki <genjix@???> wrote:

> > my wallet crashed bitcoind!
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2982
>
>
> https://github.com/spesmilo/sx/commit/f5e3ca9485438adc5bea93eba34e3f56e606f151
>
> - -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Strange transactions
> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 13:44:19 +0200
> From: Amir Taaki <genjix@???>
> To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@???>
>
> ah I forgot to set it. Thanks.
>
> On 09/09/13 13:42, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Amir Taaki <genjix@???>
> > wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> Both from here http://i.imgur.com/YUzk1cM.png
> >
> > Cool. Any idea why they have negative nversion?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>