1 2016-03-23 00:22:35 <ginseng> what is the highest version of bitcoin that is incompatible with the current version of bitcoin?
 2 2016-03-23 01:34:25 <Luke-Jr> ginseng: incompatible in what sense?
 3 2016-03-23 01:41:00 <ginseng> Luke-Jr: in the simplest use-case of send A to B. In other words can the original Satoshi 0.1 send and receive coins with current?
 4 2016-03-23 01:41:37 <Luke-Jr> ginseng: I believe the transaction format has never changed, but I never used prior to 0.3.19 so I could be wrong.
 5 2016-03-23 01:41:55 <Luke-Jr> ginseng: however, if you go back far enough, the node will be unable to sync which is necessary to receive.
 6 2016-03-23 01:43:57 <ginseng> Luke-Jr: I see. Do you know approximately when this syncing incompatibility would occur in version history? Thank you.
 7 2016-03-23 01:46:12 <Luke-Jr> ginseng: no, it was before such things were tracked (or even well-defined in understanding); it may even possibly be before the initial git import
 8 2016-03-23 01:46:48 <ginseng> Interesting, thank you.
 9 2016-03-23 02:05:13 <Chris_Stewart_5> What kind of signatures were there before DER signatures? Is there a more generic elliptic curve digital signature? I'm trying to figure out how "1" is a valid signature
10 2016-03-23 02:07:03 <Chris_Stewart_5> even if it is not DER
11 2016-03-23 02:21:12 <Luke-Jr> Chris_Stewart_5: BER
12 2016-03-23 02:21:34 <Luke-Jr> Chris_Stewart_5: what do you mean by "1" being a valid signature?
13 2016-03-23 02:25:05 <Chris_Stewart_5> Luke-Jr: for this test case in core
14 2016-03-23 02:25:21 <Chris_Stewart_5> [
15 2016-03-23 02:25:23 <Chris_Stewart_5> "1",
16 2016-03-23 02:25:25 <Chris_Stewart_5> "0x21 0x038282263212c609d9ea2a6e3e172de238d8c39cabd5ac1ca10646e23fd5f51508 CHECKSIG NOT",
17 2016-03-23 02:25:27 <Chris_Stewart_5> "",
18 2016-03-23 02:25:29 <Chris_Stewart_5> "BIP66 example 6, without DERSIG"
19 2016-03-23 02:25:31 <Chris_Stewart_5> ],
20 2016-03-23 02:25:38 <Chris_Stewart_5> bip66 examples: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0066.mediawiki#examples
21 2016-03-23 02:26:19 <Chris_Stewart_5> so shouldn't that be a valid BER signature?
22 2016-03-23 02:26:41 <Chris_Stewart_5> the "1"
23 2016-03-23 02:27:39 <Luke-Jr> no, because it's testing invalid signatures there
24 2016-03-23 02:28:44 <Chris_Stewart_5> pre BIP66 was that was a valid signature wasn't it?
25 2016-03-23 02:30:22 <Chris_Stewart_5> also note that it does not have a "DERSIG" flag
26 2016-03-23 02:31:02 <Luke-Jr> Chris_Stewart_5: it was an invalid signature
27 2016-03-23 02:31:19 <Luke-Jr> that's why it's in the invalid tests
28 2016-03-23 02:31:50 <Chris_Stewart_5> its in script_valid.json
29 2016-03-23 02:31:50 <Luke-Jr> in the case of what you quoted, notice the NOT at the end of the script
30 2016-03-23 02:32:00 <Luke-Jr> which inverts the return valid of CHECKSIG
31 2016-03-23 02:32:46 <Luke-Jr> so CHECKSIG returns false because the signature is wrong, and then NOT inverts it
32 2016-03-23 02:32:51 <Chris_Stewart_5> ok, so the BER encoded signature "1" is checked against the public key in the scriptPubKey which results in false which is inverted?
33 2016-03-23 02:32:56 <Luke-Jr> yes
34 2016-03-23 02:33:27 <Chris_Stewart_5> thanks Luke-Jr
35 2016-03-23 19:19:56 <pharley> i created a 0-fee tx and was running into the "mempool min fee not set" error when trying to send, so i used the workaround of setting prioritisetransaction as described here: https://git.io/vabUJ . but that only works if the mempool is empty, so i have to stop and restart bitcoind before i can send the tx. is there a workaround that doesnt require restarting the daemon?