M prefix added for script addresses #279

wangxinxi · 2017-01-14T13:20:31Z

Test cases for M prefix addresses are still needed.

shaolinfry · 2017-01-14T13:26:02Z

src/chainparams.cpp

@@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ class CMainParams : public CChainParams {

        base58Prefixes[PUBKEY_ADDRESS] = std::vector<unsigned char>(1,48);
        base58Prefixes[SCRIPT_ADDRESS] = std::vector<unsigned char>(1,5);
+        base58Prefixes[SCRIPT_ADDRESS2] = std::vector<unsigned char>(1,50);


Please add a SCRIPT_ADDRESS2 for testnet also so we can test it out on testnet.

shaolinfry · 2017-01-14T13:44:59Z

Does this the addmultisigaddress RPC command work with the new prefix?

wangxinxi · 2017-01-14T13:54:35Z

./litecoin-cli addmultisigaddress 2 '["LgebDAqipqUm41KQQHwSGHA56XeyzGiEVf", "LRxuPLUGjYivrjibydfKACLjFKzUiEnXgL"]'

Output:
MAP2uc4aFVwJwoJp3p8yFMs7zy6Pa5e9Zv

thrasher- · 2017-01-15T10:48:46Z

Looks good 👍 Just need an RPC test to test functionality and then its good to merge.

shaolinfry · 2017-01-15T10:51:23Z

Checked the ability to receive and spend from old and new addresses plus existing RPC calls.

Needs some python RPC tests though.

shaolinfry

Need to change the file mode to +x for this file

shaolinfry

Just realized this file needs to be added to the automated tests in https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/blob/master/qa/pull-tester/rpc-tests.py#L103

shaolinfry · 2017-01-26T12:25:24Z

two tests are failing,possibly because of default address prefix change

p2p-segwit.py:
start_node: litecoind started, waiting for RPC to come up
start_node: RPC succesfully started
start_node: litecoind started, waiting for RPC to come up
start_node: RPC succesfully started
start_node: litecoind started, waiting for RPC to come up
start_node: RPC succesfully started
MiniNode: Connecting to Litecoin Node IP # 127.0.0.1:13880
MiniNode: Connecting to Litecoin Node IP # 127.0.0.1:13880
MiniNode: Connecting to Litecoin Node IP # 127.0.0.1:13881
Starting tests before segwit lock in:
	Verifying NODE_WITNESS service bit
	Testing non-witness transaction
	Testing behavior of unnecessary witnesses
	Testing block relay
	Testing getblocktemplate setting of segwit versionbit (before lockin)
Testing behavior post lockin, pre-activation
	Testing behavior of unnecessary witnesses
	Testing relay of witness transactions
	Testing block relay
	Testing P2SH witness transactions
	Testing standardness of v0 outputs (before activation)
Testing behavior after segwit activation
	Testing P2SH witness transactions
Assertion failed: False != True
Stopping nodes
Not cleaning up dir /tmp/testl7r8qy0g/360
Failed
stderr:
   File "/home/travis/build/litecoin-project/litecoin/qa/rpc-tests/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 143, in main
    self.run_test()
  File "/home/travis/build/litecoin-project/litecoin/build/../qa/rpc-tests/p2p-segwit.py", line 1999, in run_test
    self.test_p2sh_witness(segwit_activated=True)
  File "/home/travis/build/litecoin-project/litecoin/build/../qa/rpc-tests/p2p-segwit.py", line 1506, in test_p2sh_witness
    self.test_node.test_witness_block(block, accepted=True, with_witness=segwit_activated)
  File "/home/travis/build/litecoin-project/litecoin/build/../qa/rpc-tests/p2p-segwit.py", line 159, in test_witness_block
    assert_equal(self.connection.rpc.getbestblockhash() == block.hash, accepted)
  File "/home/travis/build/litecoin-project/litecoin/qa/rpc-tests/test_framework/util.py", line 504, in assert_equal
    raise AssertionError("%s != %s"%(str(thing1),str(thing2)))
Pass: False, Duration: 36 s
...........
nulldummy.py:
Initializing test directory /tmp/testhg6_j9l5/355
start_node: litecoind started, waiting for RPC to come up
start_node: RPC succesfully started
Test 1: NULLDUMMY compliant base transactions should be accepted to mempool and mined before activation [430]
Test 2: Non-NULLDUMMY base multisig transaction should not be accepted to mempool before activation
Test 3: Non-NULLDUMMY base transactions should be accepted in a block before activation [431]
Test 4: Non-NULLDUMMY base multisig transaction is invalid after activation
Test 5: Non-NULLDUMMY P2WSH multisig transaction invalid after activation
Test 6: NULLDUMMY compliant base/witness transactions should be accepted to mempool and in block after activation [432]
Assertion failed: 0212ff1baa2262c4dce8e3c9f395e5285e7c8b961f3f8883e443843dbba664b5 != a55b5f80365728c993b61b7386714b619730b2602290d2e18678972b10bb9ed1
Stopping nodes
Not cleaning up dir /tmp/testhg6_j9l5/355
Failed
stderr:
   File "/home/travis/build/litecoin-project/litecoin/qa/rpc-tests/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 143, in main
    self.run_test()
  File "/home/travis/build/litecoin-project/litecoin/build/../qa/rpc-tests/nulldummy.py", line 102, in run_test
    self.block_submit(self.nodes[0], test6txs, True, True)
  File "/home/travis/build/litecoin-project/litecoin/build/../qa/rpc-tests/nulldummy.py", line 139, in block_submit
    assert_equal(node.getbestblockhash(), block.hash)
  File "/home/travis/build/litecoin-project/litecoin/qa/rpc-tests/test_framework/util.py", line 504, in assert_equal
    raise AssertionError("%s != %s"%(str(thing1),str(thing2)))
Pass: False, Duration: 6 s

wangxinxi · 2017-01-27T00:53:14Z

Errors in p2p-segwit.py are due to the use of wrong version bits. The function self.build_next_block() produces blocks with version = 4, which are rejected by litecoind.

Errors in nulldummy.py are also due to wrong version bits used.

We should fix them in another pull request.

losh11 · 2017-01-27T00:56:49Z

Why another PR? No need, we could always change the PR title and outline all commits and describe what each commit fixes.

wangxinxi · 2017-01-27T00:58:44Z

The two PRs are not related. Isn't it better to separate them?

shaolinfry · 2017-01-27T07:06:20Z

If the test breaks are not related to this PR, then this can be merged. I have confirmed those tests do fail on master.

SunjeeBaldorj · 2021-08-12T08:55:58Z

Balance	3.54712832 LTC	with 6611 confirmations 11 days 6 hours	Send Litecoin
Rich List	Unranked	at block 2103338 with 3.54712832 LTC LTC
Wallet	none
Transaction count	1 transaction	since block 2096728 11 days 6 hours
Received	3	.54712832	in 1 transaction

SunjeeBaldorj · 2021-08-12T08:57:16Z

hi. my ltc 3.548239
3

SunjeeBaldorj · 2021-08-12T08:59:54Z

to LY3X9yDv1kVsyC2Trkuo1hhT13dx2AAP3h please

SunjeeBaldorj · 2021-08-12T09:00:21Z

LTC Address MMapvCGNPTz5RYSrFcF1mWoNYpsX2BTzQA
before Aug-2017 was 3FNgcJrQSM8ed3Ax9jFfwsYyE8H5338ZZW (see 3/M prefix)

Balance	3.54712832 LTC	with 6611 confirmations 11 days 6 hours	Send Litecoin
Rich List	Unranked	at block 2103338 with 3.54712832 LTC LTC
Wallet	none
Transaction count	1 transaction	since block 2096728 11 days 6 hours
Received	3	.54712832	in 1 transaction
Sent	0	.0	no transaction

GBond507 · 2022-09-21T20:02:10Z

Hi there, I'm attempting to run down a transaction which has led me here to this conversation. I was wondering if anyone could help? I purchased some litecoin and sent it to the address:
3NX5JdfsQo1opG1JJAxcLgYL5eWgfCh1L1 .
The address was changed to:
MUjDcX5qMusEcmHCQ3wxAKnjQM78dCgwaV

My search led me to "3/M prefix".
I'm a newbie and have no idea what I am doing.
My apologies
Thanks

M prefix added for script addresses

3b03f2c

shaolinfry added this to the 0.13.3 milestone Jan 14, 2017

shaolinfry requested changes Jan 14, 2017

View reviewed changes

second prefix Q added for testnet script addresses

0dcd253

rpc-test added for the new multisig address

d6c6c27

shaolinfry requested changes Jan 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

shaolinfry approved these changes Jan 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

shaolinfry requested changes Jan 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

chmod added test_script_address2.py to rpc-tests.py

04ca1bc

shaolinfry approved these changes Jan 27, 2017

View reviewed changes

Update test_script_address2.py

dc4be32

thrasher- self-requested a review January 29, 2017 12:47

This was referenced Jan 29, 2017

Litecoin: Additional segwit coverage #280

Merged

Feature Request: Support transactions that require signatures of both sender and recipient.. #239

Closed

Multisig addresses versions are '3', same as Bitcoin #179

Closed

shaolinfry merged commit ea12a20 into litecoin-project:master Jan 30, 2017

shaolinfry added the enhancement label Jan 30, 2017

shaolinfry mentioned this pull request May 11, 2017

What are address version values for P2WPKH and P2WSH (BIP-142) for Litecoin? #312

Closed

brucexiu mentioned this pull request Jan 8, 2018

change litecoin p2sh address prefix richardkiss/pycoin#262

Closed

Vasiliy-Bondarenko mentioned this pull request Jan 19, 2018

Litecoin network data Bit-Wasp/bitcoin-php#610

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

M prefix added for script addresses #279

M prefix added for script addresses #279

wangxinxi commented Jan 14, 2017 •

edited

Loading

shaolinfry Jan 14, 2017

shaolinfry commented Jan 14, 2017

wangxinxi commented Jan 14, 2017

thrasher- commented Jan 15, 2017

shaolinfry commented Jan 15, 2017

shaolinfry left a comment

shaolinfry left a comment

shaolinfry commented Jan 26, 2017

wangxinxi commented Jan 27, 2017

losh11 commented Jan 27, 2017

wangxinxi commented Jan 27, 2017

shaolinfry commented Jan 27, 2017

SunjeeBaldorj commented Aug 12, 2021

SunjeeBaldorj commented Aug 12, 2021

SunjeeBaldorj commented Aug 12, 2021

SunjeeBaldorj commented Aug 12, 2021

LTC Address MMapvCGNPTz5RYSrFcF1mWoNYpsX2BTzQA
before Aug-2017 was 3FNgcJrQSM8ed3Ax9jFfwsYyE8H5338ZZW (see 3/M prefix)

GBond507 commented Sep 21, 2022

M prefix added for script addresses #279

M prefix added for script addresses #279

Conversation

wangxinxi commented Jan 14, 2017 • edited Loading

shaolinfry Jan 14, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shaolinfry commented Jan 14, 2017

wangxinxi commented Jan 14, 2017

thrasher- commented Jan 15, 2017

shaolinfry commented Jan 15, 2017

shaolinfry left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shaolinfry left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shaolinfry commented Jan 26, 2017

wangxinxi commented Jan 27, 2017

losh11 commented Jan 27, 2017

wangxinxi commented Jan 27, 2017

shaolinfry commented Jan 27, 2017

SunjeeBaldorj commented Aug 12, 2021

SunjeeBaldorj commented Aug 12, 2021

SunjeeBaldorj commented Aug 12, 2021

SunjeeBaldorj commented Aug 12, 2021

LTC Address MMapvCGNPTz5RYSrFcF1mWoNYpsX2BTzQA before Aug-2017 was 3FNgcJrQSM8ed3Ax9jFfwsYyE8H5338ZZW (see 3/M prefix)

GBond507 commented Sep 21, 2022

wangxinxi commented Jan 14, 2017 •

edited

Loading

LTC Address MMapvCGNPTz5RYSrFcF1mWoNYpsX2BTzQA
before Aug-2017 was 3FNgcJrQSM8ed3Ax9jFfwsYyE8H5338ZZW (see 3/M prefix)