pull down to refresh
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Zk2u 11 Aug
This isn’t “OP_CAT” at all, they just put the OP_SUCCESS value in a script. This is kinda misleading BS
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rsync25 OP 11 Aug
Yep.
reply
22 sats \ 19 replies \ @ChrisS 10 Aug
How did they use op_cat when bitcoin core nodes don’t know how to deal with that op code on the stack?
reply
88 sats \ 1 reply \ @ChrisS 10 Aug
Here is rijndaels answer in a comment on the post:
“ The hex value that used to be OP_CAT is defined to be an OP_SUCCESS in taproot, meaning that if its in a script, the script is valid. But, since it used to be OP_CAT, software like the mempool-space parser parses it as OP_CAT. BIP-420 picks that value to be OP_CAT, so if CAT were active today, this would be a valid tramsaction. To un-upgraded nodes (like… almost all of them), it is still a valid transaction because it doesnt see CAT, it sees SUCCESS. This is how we can add CAT as a softfork. Upgraded nodes will see 0x7e and interpret it as CAT. Unupgraded nodes will see it as SUCCESS. ”
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @rijndael 10 Aug
Yay!
reply
0 sats \ 16 replies \ @OT 10 Aug
Likely a backend deal with mara
reply
114 sats \ 14 replies \ @ChrisS 10 Aug
It doesn’t matter how much you pay the miners, the nodes won’t verify an invalid transaction.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @Bell_curve 11 Aug
It’s a repeat of the bigger block debate
reply
21 sats \ 3 replies \ @ChrisS 11 Aug
What do you mean?
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 11 Aug
The nodes wouldn't validate the bigger blocks that hard forked into BCH
The blocksize war of 2017
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ChrisS 11 Aug
I know what the blocksize war is. I’m curious as to why you say this transaction is similar? Because this transaction is valid.
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 11 Aug
I didn't say the transaction was similar
What is similar is that nodes won't verify an invalid transaction even if miners do
reply on another page
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @rijndael 11 Aug
deleted by author
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @rijndael 11 Aug
Its a valid transaction
reply
42 sats \ 1 reply \ @ChrisS 11 Aug
Yeah I know I was saying not a backend deal with Mara because nodes wouldn’t verify it if invalid
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @rijndael 11 Aug
👍
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @OT 10 Aug
Nodes can be tricked.
https://mempool.space/block/0000000000000000000515e202c8ae73c8155fc472422d7593af87aa74f2cf3d
reply
21 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 11 Aug
Where is the trick?
reply
33 sats \ 2 replies \ @OT 11 Aug
Did you see the 4mb jpg?
Looks like a trick to me
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 11 Aug
Can be considered a trick, but it’s still a valid tx
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 11 Aug
3.96?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @garyKrause_ 10 Aug
Mempool has it labeled as 'Seen in Mempool'
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @pbl4eagain 10 Aug
interesting
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @77edb424fc 11 Aug outlawed
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.