[Passed] First deposit to FLOT sell-side / NBT

According to the current FLOT charter (motion f99ddf406a32d39be7d614c13dc1ce63c96e4003), 150,000 NBT shall be requested for FLOT sell-side liquidity. Shareholders please vote for the following grant:

BqyRzFtWXDmjxrYpyJD42MLE5xc8FrB4js, 150000.00 NBT

Thank you.


Thank you for requesting the funds on behalf of the FLOT!
I felt free to adjust the title - just to make it super obvious.
And here’s the hashed version, which NSR holders might want to see:

Proposal RIPEMD160 hash: 417588d6cbb9fcc7e797b4bf3c47358b69189f3e

=##=##=##=##=##=## Custodian Hash starts with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

Custodial Address: BqyRzFtWXDmjxrYpyJD42MLE5xc8FrB4js
Amount Requested: 150000 NBT

According to the current FLOT charter (motion f99ddf406a32d39be7d614c13dc1ce63c96e4003), 150,000 NBT shall be requested for FLOT sell-side liquidity (NBT).
Shareholders please vote for the grant.

Thank you.

=##=##=##=##=##=## Custodian Hash ends with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

Verify. Use everything between and including the <custodianhash></custodianhash> tags.

Can you please add that int the initial post?
Nevermind, I just linked the entry in Nu Voting Hot List – Jan, 17 2018 to this post.


417588d6cbb9fcc7e797b4bf3c47358b69189f3e verified.

This motion proposal seems to be in compliance with the guideline given by JL.
Therefore I will be voting for it.

Supporting it too for the same obvious reason as previous poster. Will add this to my datafeed.
Only wondered whether it is not wiser to have this amount of money spread across a number of multisig addresses?

1 Like

First of all on behalf of FLOT I thank you for your support.

Multisig is tricky enough to deal with using just one address. The best way would be to use different permutations of public keys to generate multiple address; this can reduce some unlikely user errors in using Cointoolkit (fat fingers, not verifying the transactions). The security gain, though, is marginal, and comes at a cost - both the community and FLOT need to keep track of more than one address at a time, which introduces other forms of security issues.

If we use different sets of public keys altogether, this also introduces some key management issues, both by FLOT and the community, without much security gain. A lot of that is because of the overhead in agreeing upon a newly formed address (which already has to be done for every custodial grant, btw), and that nud and bitcoind don’t let you segregate private keys and choose a specific key that you use to sign a transaction (not necessarily an overall bad design in itself).

Personally I will reserve the first option as a possible solution, but it comes down to whether FLOT has the right training in doing the right thing. To address this concern, we may be able to do multiple practice runs in burning the 0.49 NBT “test balance” without touching the 20000 NBT output. @jooize @masterOfDisaster @ttutdxh @woodstockmerkle want to give it a try?

Currently supporting that proposal with my feed

I don’t know how to burn.

Using two inputs (0.1 NBT and 0.39 NBT) with outputs (0.1 NBT and 0.38 NBT) to @dysconnect and FLOT’s NBT address (the same one), fee 0.01 NBT, I produce this transaction:


Not signed. Does it look right?

How do I use git-multisig to burn? I see --burn, but didn’t figure out how to use it.

Update: Why do some addresses set as output show as a different address when verifying?

Yeah it’s not implemented yet. Let me do that quickly, though Cointoolkit may be better at doing that. To burn say 0.1 NBT from 0.49 NBT, just set the output to be 0.39 NBT and the 0.1 NBT will be gone forever.

Okay, so just make the amount I want to burn the transaction fee?


Thanks! Now how do I make it send to BqyRzFtWXDmjxrYpyJD42MLE5xc8FrB4js?

When I set BqyRzFtWXDmjxrYpyJD42MLE5xc8FrB4js as output, then verify, it shows BSdq19bDp3Js9RQjwssjYE4STTMBaUPG3A instead. Is that right?


Can you observe/post the output of this RPC command?

decoderawtransaction 0100000086fa625602bb2a539844c41f845d68a66baeb26765572af93801f0f3ca46f1f85c0e6edf610000000017a914f35b24f264597d66ba8c366a5005824bb6a0613887fffffffffdd47933815da84323e55aa139e59cd355c26984bb5a6f3ff9eb5b0e12b8daad0100000017a914f35b24f264597d66ba8c366a5005824bb6a0613887ffffffff013c0f0000000000001976a914f35b24f264597d66ba8c366a5005824bb6a0613888ac0000000042

"txid" : "eca8b7ee5c24e0bbcf3dca672fa60e6b66f4d63e93497dd847ebd78cf7be5724",
"version" : 1,
"time" : 1449327238,
"locktime" : 0,
"unit" : "B",
"vin" : [
"txid" : "61df6e0e5cf8f146caf3f00138f92a576567b2ae6ba6685d841fc44498532abb",
"vout" : 0,
"scriptSig" : {
"asm" : "OP_HASH160 f35b24f264597d66ba8c366a5005824bb6a06138 OP_EQUAL",
"hex" : "a914f35b24f264597d66ba8c366a5005824bb6a0613887"
"sequence" : 4294967295
"txid" : "addab8120e5bebf93f6f5abb8469c255d39ce539a15ae52343a85d813379d4fd",
"vout" : 1,
"scriptSig" : {
"asm" : "OP_HASH160 f35b24f264597d66ba8c366a5005824bb6a06138 OP_EQUAL",
"hex" : "a914f35b24f264597d66ba8c366a5005824bb6a0613887"
"sequence" : 4294967295
"vout" : [
"value" : 0.39,
"n" : 0,
"scriptPubKey" : {
"asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 f35b24f264597d66ba8c366a5005824bb6a06138 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex" : "76a914f35b24f264597d66ba8c366a5005824bb6a0613888ac",
"type" : "pubkeyhash",
"reqSigs" : 1,
"addresses" : [

I see. Thanks for testing. I don’t know why that happened and will need to check later; I don’t have access to git-multisig and nud at the moment. Cointoolkit seems to handle that well.

I used Cointoolkit. :octopus:

This passed.

Doesn’t it still need a few share days?

It was passed in the list of passed grants in qt.