Error while send transaction: Data push larger than necessary
Looks like transaction decodes fine. But when I use sendrawtransaction I got
Data push larger than necessary
What's wrong with this tx?
bitcoin-cli -testnet decoderawtransaction 020000000149d4a5f520ded6fa94f79cd268f0334baeec9a7732c9d946d1cdee58d81e7aad00000000020101ffffffff01904c96000000000017a914f45d94733d430261962932e0c847075195916a048700000000
{
"txid": "1bbf569b281f2cd9d948e4273120a9bc3bb2c21e31bc9786682c0a22d8feb76c",
"hash": "1bbf569b281f2cd9d948e4273120a9bc3bb2c21e31bc9786682c0a22d8feb76c",
"version": 2,
"size": 85,
"vsize": 85,
"weight": 340,
"locktime": 0,
"vin": [
{
"txid": "ad7a1ed858eecdd146d9c932779aecae4b33f068d29cf794fad6de20f5a5d449",
"vout": 0,
"scriptSig": {
"asm": "1",
"hex": "0101"
},
"sequence": 4294967295
}
],
"vout": [
{
"value": 0.09850000,
"n": 0,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_HASH160 f45d94733d430261962932e0c847075195916a04 OP_EQUAL",
"hex": "a914f45d94733d430261962932e0c847075195916a0487",
"reqSigs": 1,
"type": "scripthash",
"addresses": [
"2NFXJy8mvz7ZiT4VVN29xPGC38hTygd3AyJ"
]
}
}
]
}
bitcoind raw-transaction
asked Nov 16 at 1:31
Andrew
766
add a comment |
Looks like transaction decodes fine. But when I use sendrawtransaction I got
Data push larger than necessary
What's wrong with this tx?
bitcoin-cli -testnet decoderawtransaction 020000000149d4a5f520ded6fa94f79cd268f0334baeec9a7732c9d946d1cdee58d81e7aad00000000020101ffffffff01904c96000000000017a914f45d94733d430261962932e0c847075195916a048700000000
{
"txid": "1bbf569b281f2cd9d948e4273120a9bc3bb2c21e31bc9786682c0a22d8feb76c",
"hash": "1bbf569b281f2cd9d948e4273120a9bc3bb2c21e31bc9786682c0a22d8feb76c",
"version": 2,
"size": 85,
"vsize": 85,
"weight": 340,
"locktime": 0,
"vin": [
{
"txid": "ad7a1ed858eecdd146d9c932779aecae4b33f068d29cf794fad6de20f5a5d449",
"vout": 0,
"scriptSig": {
"asm": "1",
"hex": "0101"
},
"sequence": 4294967295
}
],
"vout": [
{
"value": 0.09850000,
"n": 0,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_HASH160 f45d94733d430261962932e0c847075195916a04 OP_EQUAL",
"hex": "a914f45d94733d430261962932e0c847075195916a0487",
"reqSigs": 1,
"type": "scripthash",
"addresses": [
"2NFXJy8mvz7ZiT4VVN29xPGC38hTygd3AyJ"
]
}
}
]
}
bitcoind raw-transaction
asked Nov 16 at 1:31
Andrew
766
add a comment |
Looks like transaction decodes fine. But when I use sendrawtransaction I got
Data push larger than necessary
What's wrong with this tx?
bitcoin-cli -testnet decoderawtransaction 020000000149d4a5f520ded6fa94f79cd268f0334baeec9a7732c9d946d1cdee58d81e7aad00000000020101ffffffff01904c96000000000017a914f45d94733d430261962932e0c847075195916a048700000000
{
"txid": "1bbf569b281f2cd9d948e4273120a9bc3bb2c21e31bc9786682c0a22d8feb76c",
"hash": "1bbf569b281f2cd9d948e4273120a9bc3bb2c21e31bc9786682c0a22d8feb76c",
"version": 2,
"size": 85,
"vsize": 85,
"weight": 340,
"locktime": 0,
"vin": [
{
"txid": "ad7a1ed858eecdd146d9c932779aecae4b33f068d29cf794fad6de20f5a5d449",
"vout": 0,
"scriptSig": {
"asm": "1",
"hex": "0101"
},
"sequence": 4294967295
}
],
"vout": [
{
"value": 0.09850000,
"n": 0,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_HASH160 f45d94733d430261962932e0c847075195916a04 OP_EQUAL",
"hex": "a914f45d94733d430261962932e0c847075195916a0487",
"reqSigs": 1,
"type": "scripthash",
"addresses": [
"2NFXJy8mvz7ZiT4VVN29xPGC38hTygd3AyJ"
]
}
}
]
}
bitcoind raw-transaction
asked Nov 16 at 1:31
Andrew
766
Looks like transaction decodes fine. But when I use sendrawtransaction I got
Data push larger than necessary
What's wrong with this tx?
bitcoin-cli -testnet decoderawtransaction 020000000149d4a5f520ded6fa94f79cd268f0334baeec9a7732c9d946d1cdee58d81e7aad00000000020101ffffffff01904c96000000000017a914f45d94733d430261962932e0c847075195916a048700000000
{
"txid": "1bbf569b281f2cd9d948e4273120a9bc3bb2c21e31bc9786682c0a22d8feb76c",
"hash": "1bbf569b281f2cd9d948e4273120a9bc3bb2c21e31bc9786682c0a22d8feb76c",
"version": 2,
"size": 85,
"vsize": 85,
"weight": 340,
"locktime": 0,
"vin": [
{
"txid": "ad7a1ed858eecdd146d9c932779aecae4b33f068d29cf794fad6de20f5a5d449",
"vout": 0,
"scriptSig": {
"asm": "1",
"hex": "0101"
},
"sequence": 4294967295
}
],
"vout": [
{
"value": 0.09850000,
"n": 0,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_HASH160 f45d94733d430261962932e0c847075195916a04 OP_EQUAL",
"hex": "a914f45d94733d430261962932e0c847075195916a0487",
"reqSigs": 1,
"type": "scripthash",
"addresses": [
"2NFXJy8mvz7ZiT4VVN29xPGC38hTygd3AyJ"
]
}
}
]
}
bitcoind raw-transaction
bitcoind raw-transaction
asked Nov 16 at 1:31
Andrew
766
asked Nov 16 at 1:31
Andrew
766
asked Nov 16 at 1:31
Andrew
766
asked Nov 16 at 1:31
Andrew
766
asked Nov 16 at 1:31
Andrew
766
766
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Your scriptSig uses a data push to push 0x01 onto the stack. It could use OP_1 instead.
answered Nov 16 at 1:34
Pieter Wuille
45.4k391152
Thank you! But now I got "Script evaluated without error but finished with a false/empty top stack element)" Is this something wrong with my redeem script or scriptpubkey ?
– Andrew
Nov 16 at 2:09
add a comment |
Your transaction is failing validation with SCRIPT_VERIFY_MINIMALDATA, which is described in BIP 62 rule 3 protections against malleability. CheckMinimalPush() requires a push of 0x01 to be done using OP_1.
This standardness rule avoids the case where someone takes a transaction from the network and a push with a longer encoding of the same push and as a result creates a malleated form of the transaction.
answered Nov 16 at 1:48
G. Maxwell
3,2101629
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "308"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f81066%2ferror-while-send-transaction-data-push-larger-than-necessary%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Your scriptSig uses a data push to push 0x01 onto the stack. It could use OP_1 instead.
answered Nov 16 at 1:34
Pieter Wuille
45.4k391152
Thank you! But now I got "Script evaluated without error but finished with a false/empty top stack element)" Is this something wrong with my redeem script or scriptpubkey ?
– Andrew
Nov 16 at 2:09
add a comment |
Your scriptSig uses a data push to push 0x01 onto the stack. It could use OP_1 instead.
answered Nov 16 at 1:34
Pieter Wuille
45.4k391152
Thank you! But now I got "Script evaluated without error but finished with a false/empty top stack element)" Is this something wrong with my redeem script or scriptpubkey ?
– Andrew
Nov 16 at 2:09
add a comment |
Your scriptSig uses a data push to push 0x01 onto the stack. It could use OP_1 instead.
answered Nov 16 at 1:34
Pieter Wuille
45.4k391152
Your scriptSig uses a data push to push 0x01 onto the stack. It could use OP_1 instead.
answered Nov 16 at 1:34
Pieter Wuille
45.4k391152
answered Nov 16 at 1:34
Pieter Wuille
45.4k391152
answered Nov 16 at 1:34
Pieter Wuille
45.4k391152
answered Nov 16 at 1:34
Pieter Wuille
45.4k391152
45.4k391152
Thank you! But now I got "Script evaluated without error but finished with a false/empty top stack element)" Is this something wrong with my redeem script or scriptpubkey ?
– Andrew
Nov 16 at 2:09
add a comment |
Thank you! But now I got "Script evaluated without error but finished with a false/empty top stack element)" Is this something wrong with my redeem script or scriptpubkey ?
– Andrew
Nov 16 at 2:09
Thank you! But now I got "Script evaluated without error but finished with a false/empty top stack element)" Is this something wrong with my redeem script or scriptpubkey ?
– Andrew
Nov 16 at 2:09
Thank you! But now I got "Script evaluated without error but finished with a false/empty top stack element)" Is this something wrong with my redeem script or scriptpubkey ?
– Andrew
Nov 16 at 2:09
add a comment |
Your transaction is failing validation with SCRIPT_VERIFY_MINIMALDATA, which is described in BIP 62 rule 3 protections against malleability. CheckMinimalPush() requires a push of 0x01 to be done using OP_1.
This standardness rule avoids the case where someone takes a transaction from the network and a push with a longer encoding of the same push and as a result creates a malleated form of the transaction.
answered Nov 16 at 1:48
G. Maxwell
3,2101629
add a comment |
Your transaction is failing validation with SCRIPT_VERIFY_MINIMALDATA, which is described in BIP 62 rule 3 protections against malleability. CheckMinimalPush() requires a push of 0x01 to be done using OP_1.
This standardness rule avoids the case where someone takes a transaction from the network and a push with a longer encoding of the same push and as a result creates a malleated form of the transaction.
answered Nov 16 at 1:48
G. Maxwell
3,2101629
add a comment |
Your transaction is failing validation with SCRIPT_VERIFY_MINIMALDATA, which is described in BIP 62 rule 3 protections against malleability. CheckMinimalPush() requires a push of 0x01 to be done using OP_1.
This standardness rule avoids the case where someone takes a transaction from the network and a push with a longer encoding of the same push and as a result creates a malleated form of the transaction.
answered Nov 16 at 1:48
G. Maxwell
3,2101629
Your transaction is failing validation with SCRIPT_VERIFY_MINIMALDATA, which is described in BIP 62 rule 3 protections against malleability. CheckMinimalPush() requires a push of 0x01 to be done using OP_1.
This standardness rule avoids the case where someone takes a transaction from the network and a push with a longer encoding of the same push and as a result creates a malleated form of the transaction.
answered Nov 16 at 1:48
G. Maxwell
3,2101629
answered Nov 16 at 1:48
G. Maxwell
3,2101629
answered Nov 16 at 1:48
G. Maxwell
3,2101629
answered Nov 16 at 1:48
G. Maxwell
3,2101629
3,2101629
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Bitcoin Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f81066%2ferror-while-send-transaction-data-push-larger-than-necessary%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
